Nancy Pelosi began her reign...

...by claiming she would lead the most accountable, open, honest, transparent congress in the history of the United States.

Then she decided to back her boy Jack Murtha for majority leader over the more obvious choice, Steny Hoyer.

It appears she may have to start splitting hairs sooner than I thought...

Murtha Lashes Out at Dem Leadership Opponent

Tuesday, November 14, 2006


WASHINGTON — The race to be the No. 2 House Democratic leader turned nasty Tuesday, with challenger Rep. John Murtha accusing opponents of "swift-boat style attacks" that hark back to his days being investigated in the FBI's 1980 Abscam sting.

Murtha won endorsement Monday from Nancy Pelosi, who is widely expected to be the House speaker. But Murtha is opposed by some liberals who say they are not happy with the Pennsylvania lawmaker's pro-gun and anti-abortion record. Others say Pelosi took a wrong turn in backing Murtha over her current deputy Rep. Steny Hoyer because Murtha's record is marred by ethics questions of the type Pelosi pledged to clean up in Congress.

"I am disconcerted that some are making headlines by resorting to unfounded allegations that occurred 26 years ago. I thought we were above this type of swift-boating attack. This is not how we restore integrity and civility to the United States Congress," Murtha said of the ample press coverage of his link to Abscam and more recent negotiations he made as ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Committee.

Murtha was not indicted in the bribes-for-political-favors probe and ultimately cleared of wrongdoing by the House ethics committee. But his raunchy language and open-ended option to consider a future deal with undercover FBI agents is forever captured on videotape.

The New York Times on Tuesday also reported that Murtha helped block changes in ethics policies that Democrats proposed last year and is known as "an astute backroom-deal maker known for trading votes for the pet projects known as earmarks. He has had family members who lobbied on issues under his control."

Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who last year proposed a hasty withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, tried to change the subject on Tuesday.

"Of the critical issues we are faced with today, the war in Iraq is the most crucial. The Pelosi-Murtha position on the war is the reason the Democrats are in the majority today. Congressman Hoyer's position has been to stay the course with President Bush from the very beginning and, like Senator John McCain, he advocates sending in more troops," Murtha said.

Hoyer is considered the favorite to win the majority leader race, having visited 82 congressional districts this past election cycle. He helped raise $8.2 million for the party's candidates in the months leading to the Nov. 7 election, earning him letters of support from more than half of the incoming lawmakers who won their seats last week.

After Murtha's statement, Hoyer's office shot back.

"Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Murtha have joined other Democratic leaders from both the House and Senate in signing three letters to the president that outline the consensus among Democrats regarding Iraq," said Stacey Farnen Bernards, Hoyer’s press secretary. "Any representation that Congressman Hoyer endorses a ‘stay-the-course’ strategy or advocates sending more troops to Iraq is wrong."

At a news conference Tuesday, Hoyer said he still expects to win the post, and despite Pelosi's anticipated endorsement of her friend Murtha, "Nancy Pelosi and I will work very closely together in the future. Why? Because both of us care about the objectives of our party."

Hoyer also has the backing of several members of the Progressive Caucus, who sent a letter Monday to their Democratic colleagues, urging support for Hoyer.

"As our Democratic Whip over the last four years, Steny has worked very well with Nancy and our entire leadership team, and their efforts have helped our caucus achieve greater unity than at any time in the last half century," reads the letter signed by Reps. Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler, Elijah Cummings, Jose Serrano, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Emanuel Cleaver.

The group pointed to Hoyer's support for hiking the federal minimum wage, enhancing human and civil rights and environmental protections, increasing education and health care funding and backing the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade.

Three-term Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., said he backs Hoyer, but has not been pressured by Pelosi or others to change his mind and support Murtha instead.

"This is a Democratic Caucus that will be able to develop a consensus, and members will choose whoever they feel would be most representative of our caucus and its principles and values," Israel told FOX News.

Israel added that he doesn't think "the vast majority of the American people woke up this morning" thinking about who's going to be the Democratic leaders in the House. Instead, they are worried about Iraq and other issues, he said.

"I'm focusing my efforts and continuing to try and develop some common-sense, bipartisan solutions to the situation in Iraq, and, frankly, putting the politics and internal Democratic Caucus matters on the back burner where they belong," he said.

The infighting is not unexpected. Murtha and Pelosi have long been allies, while Pelosi and Hoyer have had a less cordial relationship, starting with her defeat of Hoyer in 2002 to become the minority leader following Dick Gephardt's departure from Congress.

Murtha announced last fall he intended to run for majority leader if Democrats won control of the House, a pre-election jab at Hoyer at a time the Marylander was pledging support for Pelosi.

Pelosi told Murtha to hold back, saying that she didn't want to divide the party while Democrats were trying to win the majority from Republicans after 12 years in the minority.

In her letter Monday, Pelosi began by noting that Murtha had requested her support. Noting his opposition to the war, she added, "Your leadership gave so many Americans, including respected military leaders, the encouragement to voice their own disapproval at a failed policy that weakens our military and makes stability in that region even more difficult to achieve."

Then there's this:

The Washington Times

The real Jack Murtha Published June 21, 2006

Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.

That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."

It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

Maybe the next time the new Jack Murtha thinks up another big idea someone can ask him about the old Jack Murtha.

Somehow I'm sure this doesn't sound the least hypocritical to anyone but me...:noes:

Political dictionaries all over the world start with the letter 'N'. It lets the politicians get to nepotism quicker.:whistling

From what I just read, I don't like it one bit.

Why the fuck is Nancy Pelosi backing someone that is soooo "questionable".

As far as the earmarks, I believe all congressman do that shit and that's why there should be rules regarding it.

However, that other shit should knock him outta consideration. Picking him cos he yelled loudly about anti-war is no reason to turn a blind eye to his shakiness on ethics.

It sounds like Nancy is fucking up already.:angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

...by claiming she would lead the most accountable, open, honest, transparent congress in the history of the United States.

Then she decided to back her boy Jack Murtha for majority leader over the more obvious choice, Steny Hoyer.

It appears she may have to start splitting hairs sooner than I thought...

---

Why is one more obvious over the other?

I know you like to raise abscam whenever you can but answer this yes or no

1- Was he convicted of any crime?

2- Was he charged with any crime?

3- Did he take any money?

4- Did he admit to any wrong doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then there's this:

The Washington Times

The real Jack Murtha Published June 21, 2006

Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.

That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.

---

I had to stop reading this bias right wing opinion (it's not a report it's an opinion)
Murtha didn't accuse the marines of murder in cold blood, he reported that there is an investigation into it and later, after it was confirmed, that the evidence is not very favorable to the accused (he had inside information). Has anything he said been untrue? Also he wasn't blaming the troops, he was blaming the war policies of this administration for putting the troops into positions where that could happen.
And any op-ed that uses talking points like "cut and run" and basically accuses anyone of hating the troops (isn't the human shield what coulter accuses liberals of using?)if they disagree with the president is worthless.


Next you'll be telling us that Kerry called our troops terrorists :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Why is one more obvious over the other?

I know you like to raise abscam whenever you can but answer this yes or no

1- Was he convicted of any crime?

2- Was he charged with any crime?

3- Did he take any money?

4- Did he admit to any wrong doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then there's this:

The Washington Times

The real Jack Murtha Published June 21, 2006

Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.

That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.

---

I had to stop reading this bias right wing opinion (it's not a report it's an opinion)
Murtha didn't accuse the marines of murder in cold blood, he reported that there is an investigation into it and later, after it was confirmed, that the evidence is not very favorable to the accused (he had inside information). Has anything he said been untrue? Also he wasn't blaming the troops, he was blaming the war policies of this administration for putting the troops into positions where that could happen.
And any op-ed that uses talking points like "cut and run" and basically accuses anyone of hating the troops (isn't the human shield what coulter accuses liberals of using?)if they disagree with the president is worthless.


Next you'll be telling us that Kerry called our troops terrorists :rolleyes:

---

Still from what I read, I don't like him. The crap about troops is biased shit.

However, I'd like to know why he voted against the ethics bill.

I'd also like to know about this

Quote:

---

But his raunchy language and open-ended option to consider a future deal with undercover FBI agents is forever captured on videotape.

---

Murtha is already a congressman. The debate is whether he should be the number 2 to Pelosi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Murtha is already a congressman. The debate is whether he should be the number 2 to Pelosi.

---

That's up to the party. Obviously the repubs. brought in ethics reforms that will stop any wrong doing....oh hold on:dry:
It's interesting to see how all those talking heads that think oversight is a bad thing ( when it's oversight of republicans ) are now complaining about ethics.:rolleyes:
as to voting against the ethics bill, that's just creative spin. He voted against a bad bill.
Here's a question.

How come there were no ethics charges brought against murtha for the things highlighted when the repubs had the power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Murtha is already a congressman. The debate is whether he should be the number 2 to Pelosi.

---

That's up to the party. Obviously the repubs. brought in ethics reforms that will stop any wrong doing....oh hold on:dry:
It's interesting to see how all those talking heads that think oversight is a bad thing ( when it's oversight of republicans ) are now complaining about ethics.:rolleyes:
as to voting against the ethics bill, that's just creative spin. He voted against a bad bill.
Here's a question.

How come there were no ethics charges brought against murtha for the things highlighted when the repubs had the power?

---

Well I'm obviously ignorant of the bill itself (among other things about Murtha).

You must also understand that I'm not a defender of all things Democratic Party. There were some points in j2's post (or C&P) that seemed valid. True that Mothra may have voted against an ethics bill and the ethics bill might have stunk....but did it?

What about the bill was bad? (since you seem to know and I am ignorant of it's workings) I am well aware that sometimes if a disliked provision in a bill isn't changed or neutered down that one must vote against the entire bill (which for the most part is good) to ensure that the provision doesn't pass.

The ethics "reform" was a toothless waste of time

Murtha is being backed because of his more staunch opposition of the way the Iraq war has been handled with regards to the deployment of troops and avoidance of drafting a plan for the withdraw of American forces. I don't know much else about him, but I think because of the elections and changing of the power in our congress, many dems, including Pelosi, want to have leadership that reflects the vote. Hoyer is not exactly an advocate for staying the course, but he has been much less active and vocal in support of what many consider the main issue before our new congress, which is how the hell do we get our boys home and still handle this war with the outcomes being positive and progressive in Iraq. I don't think Pelosi believes Hoyer to be incompetent just as I do not think she backed Murtha because they are old chums. She wants a strong front to swing the momentum the previous congress has created back to where the people of this country have expressed they want it. What I do think is important here is that the directions and actions of our incoming congress reflect the wishes of the people and so "over swing" to the left would be unacceptable. The great part is that the new congress consists of much more moderate thinkers on both sides (with Pelosi being at the far left of the spectrum) and that may result in a better balance in the way things are done. I feel it is extremely important that the white house have a check on their agendas and a strong voice that will stop the conservative progression before we are left out in the cold. The task before this new congress is huge and undoubtedly hard. I do not think that anyone in the outgoing congress or current white house was able to come up with plan with regards to domestic illegal immigration, health care, deficit spending, and of course foreign policy and war issues. Therefor the task at hand will be highly scrutinized by all as to its ability to secure our borders, improve the health of our country and stop our loss of international diplomacy. Lets face it, we have lost a lot of face in these areas in a time when the congress was more often then not able to pass what laws it needed to to make improvements. What seemed to happen was decisions were made and laws were enacted that did not improve the shape of the country, but increased the agenda of conservatives and increased the power of the government (which I thought the repubs were against) and decreased the accountability of these changes to the people. I really hope that Bush, Pelosi and all of congress realizes this and will make a concerted effort to right the ship. I can only hope that scandal, "pocket lining", flat out dishonesty, earmarking, and cronyism will not be a part of the way our government does its business in the coming years.

Here's to America...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alumini

Murtha is being backed because of his more staunch opposition of the way the Iraq war has been handled with regards to the deployment of troops and avoidance of drafting a plan for the withdraw of American forces. I don't know much else about him, but I think because of the elections and changing of the power in our congress, many dems, including Pelosi, want to have leadership that reflects the vote. Hoyer is not exactly an advocate for staying the course, but he has been much less active and vocal in support of what many consider the main issue before our new congress, which is how the hell do we get our boys home and still handle this war with the outcomes being positive and progressive in Iraq. I don't think Pelosi believes Hoyer to be incompetent just as I do not think she backed Murtha because they are old chums. She wants a strong front to swing the momentum the previous congress has created back to where the people of this country have expressed they want it. What I do think is important here is that the directions and actions of our incoming congress reflect the wishes of the people and so "over swing" to the left would be unacceptable. The great part is that the new congress consists of much more moderate thinkers on both sides (with Pelosi being at the far left of the spectrum) and that may result in a better balance in the way things are done. I feel it is extremely important that the white house have a check on their agendas and a strong voice that will stop the conservative progression before we are left out in the cold. The task before this new congress is huge and undoubtedly hard. I do not think that anyone in the outgoing congress or current white house was able to come up with plan with regards to domestic illegal immigration, health care, deficit spending, and of course foreign policy and war issues. Therefor the task at hand will be highly scrutinized by all as to its ability to secure our borders, improve the health of our country and stop our loss of international diplomacy. Lets face it, we have lost a lot of face in these areas in a time when the congress was more often then not able to pass what laws it needed to to make improvements. What seemed to happen was decisions were made and laws were enacted that did not improve the shape of the country, but increased the agenda of conservatives and increased the power of the government (which I thought the repubs were against) and decreased the accountability of these changes to the people. I really hope that Bush, Pelosi and all of congress realizes this and will make a concerted effort to right the ship. I can only hope that scandal, "pocket lining", flat out dishonesty, earmarking, and cronyism will not be a part of the way our government does its business in the coming years.

Here's to America...

---

Nice read...for a word brick.

I hope the Dems realize that Iraq ain't the only issue that needs to be tackled.

Jack Murtha has been tagged by several watchdog groups as "one of the most corrupt members of Congress, ever."

This is of course the Democrats' response to a "culture of corruption" - a chance to get in on the corruption and really show the world how it should be done!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then there's this:

The Washington Times

The real Jack Murtha Published June 21, 2006

Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan.

That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha.

---

I had to stop reading this bias right wing opinion (it's not a report it's an opinion)
Murtha didn't accuse the marines of murder in cold blood, he reported that there is an investigation into it and later, after it was confirmed, that the evidence is not very favorable to the accused (he had inside information). Has anything he said been untrue? Also he wasn't blaming the troops, he was blaming the war policies of this administration for putting the troops into positions where that could happen.
And any op-ed that uses talking points like "cut and run" and basically accuses anyone of hating the troops (isn't the human shield what coulter accuses liberals of using?)if they disagree with the president is worthless.

---

Why didn't you address the rest of the column; the parts about his "patronage"?

"Bias right-wing opinion"?

As opposed to the lefty stuff in the NYT and the Washington Post?

The reportage about the issue of his patronage isn't opinion, it is fact.

You've ignored that, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Why didn't you address the rest of the column; the parts about his "patronage"?

"Bias right-wing opinion"?

As opposed to the lefty stuff in the NYT and the Washington Post?

The reportage about the issue of his patronage isn't opinion, it is fact.

You've ignored that, however.

---

you have the answer in the first paragraph and my response. I even explained why I stopped reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Jack Murtha has been tagged by several watchdog groups as "one of the most corrupt members of Congress, ever."

This is of course the Democrats' response to a "culture of corruption" - a chance to get in on the corruption and really show the world how it should be done!

---

oh...has he been voted in at the time you posted then?

I see trent "america was better off with segregation" is back for the repubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

---

All of this may be "facts" but it proves what exactly?

Were there any "no-bid" contracts? Was there any ethics investigation? did congress award this or murtha alone? was murtha convicted of any wrong doing. does murtha's position make it illegal for any friends or family to put in bids? were contracts awarded competitively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

---

"reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials:rolleyes: oh yes this is fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."

---

the opinion of rep.wilson that an investigation is warranted "If there is a potential pattern" is not evidence of wrongdoing, it is just a handy quote in a bias anti murtha op-ed.
However if one is held, and I would welcome that oversight, and murtha is found to be guilty then I will gladly condemn him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

---

fact or conspiracy theory:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I see trent "america was better off with segregation" is back for the repubs.

---

Regretful, that.

Recycled goods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

All of this may be "facts" but it proves what exactly?

Were there any "no-bid" contracts? Was there any ethics investigation? did congress award this or murtha alone? was murtha convicted of any wrong doing. does murtha's position make it illegal for any friends or family to put in bids? were contracts awarded competitivel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

---

"reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials:rolleyes: oh yes this is fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."

---

the opinion of rep.wilson that an investigation is warranted "If there is a potential pattern" is not evidence of wrongdoing, it is just a handy quote in a bias anti murtha op-ed.
However if one is held, and I would welcome that oversight, and murtha is found to be guilty then I will gladly condemn him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

---

fact or conspiracy theory:rolleyes:

---

Say what you want, but Ms. Pelosi proposes to elevate Murtha from a fringe player to the spotlight of leadership while she touts her unerring eye and aim for "honest, open and accountable government".

Your defense of Murtha indicates you think she's already doing a fine job, or at least that Democrat corruption is somehow less malignant than the Republican type.

I'll be satisfied to watch and comment. :)

EDIT:

I almost forgot to mention-

It did my heart great good to hear Murtha whine that he is being "swift-boated".......by his fellow Democrats. :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Jack Murtha has been tagged by several watchdog groups as "one of the most corrupt members of Congress, ever."

This is of course the Democrats' response to a "culture of corruption" - a chance to get in on the corruption and really show the world how it should be done!

---

oh...has he been voted in at the time you posted then?

I see trent "america was better off with segregation" is back for the repubs.

---

:lol: :lol:

The Republican party is strong in the south.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Say what you want, but Ms. Pelosi proposes to elevate Murtha from a fringe player to the spotlight of leadership while she touts her unerring eye and aim for "honest, open and accountable government".

---

Could it be that the democratic party won partly on their agenda of a new course in Iraq? and who has been the most vocal and credible in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Your defense of Murtha indicates you think she's already doing a fine job, or at least that Democrat corruption is somehow less malignant than the Republican type.

---

I've made no comment on pelosi, she hasn't started yet.
I am under no delusions about any public servant being an angel, I simply responded to your "facts" and how they were interpreted to suit that bias op-ed.
Since murtha chose to speak up about the mis-management of Iraq there has been such frenzied efforts on the right to smear him that any little tidbit that can be twisted has been used. Oddly enough very little in response to what he actually says about Iraq. Almost every single person could be smeared by conspiracy theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

oh...has he been voted in at the time you posted then?

I see trent "america was better off with segregation" is back for the repubs.

---

:lol: :lol:

The Republican party is strong in the south.

---

If either of you thinks this past election signals a re-emergence of any sort of liberal "ideal", you are sadly mistaken.

You will see this in good time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Since murtha chose to speak up about the mis-management of Iraq there has been such frenzied efforts on the right to smear him...

---

frenzied efforts on the right to smear him...?

Oh, that's rich.

In any case, at the moment he seems preoccupied with the attacks originating on the left.

That's your side, I believe...:whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

If either of you thinks this past election signals a re-emergence of any sort of liberal "ideal", you are sadly mistaken.

You will see this in good time.

---

You got that from????

I seem to remember a certain person doing the "I told you so" thing when Bush won. Doesn't your reasoning count when it's the other way round?

you remind me of what I used to hear after every election when I was in the UK.... somehow the losing party would always claim some sort of victory.

BTW the vast majority of the country is neither Liberal or Conservative, but somewhere in the middle. You just have to choose the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

...the vast majority of the country is neither Liberal or Conservative, but somewhere in the middle.

---

Prove that.

prove otherwise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

:lol: :lol:

The Republican party is strong in the south.

---

If either of you thinks this past election signals a re-emergence of any sort of liberal "ideal", you are sadly mistaken.

You will see this in good time.

---

I don't actually. I even thought that the Dems are being used straighten out Iraq and then dumped.

However, it is still a golden opportunity for them. I imagine folks that voted your way had to say to them themselves, "Damn ya'll fucked up sooooo bad that we've got to change."

I've said it all along, the Bush tenure has been one massive fuck up. The only thing that Republicans try to hang their hat on is "lowest unemployment since '01 due to tax cuts" which is dubious since it implies that without tax cuts there can't be low unemplyment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[
I've said it all along, the Bush tenure has been one massive fuck up. The only thing that Republicans try to hang their hat on is "lowest unemployment since '01 due to tax cuts" which is dubious since it implies that without tax cuts there can't be low unemplyment.

---

Do you like paying taxes?

Would you like to pay more taxes?

Honest questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[
I've said it all along, the Bush tenure has been one massive fuck up. The only thing that Republicans try to hang their hat on is "lowest unemployment since '01 due to tax cuts" which is dubious since it implies that without tax cuts there can't be low unemplyment.

---

Do you like paying taxes?

Would you like to pay more taxes?

Honest questions.

---

I'd like to pay no taxes. When I make $80,000, I'd like to bring home $80,000.

What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Do you like paying taxes?

Would you like to pay more taxes?

Honest questions.

---

I'd like to pay no taxes. When I make $80,000, I'd like to bring home $80,000.

What's your point?

---

What makes you think tax cuts don't optimize the unemployment situation?

Cut my taxes enough, I can hire another guy.

You don't believe that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I'd like to pay no taxes. When I make $80,000, I'd like to bring home $80,000.

What's your point?

---

What makes you think tax cuts don't optimize the unemployment situation?

Cut my taxes enough, I can hire another guy.

You don't believe that?

---

Sure you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

When I make $80,000, I'd like to bring home $80,000.

---

But is your freezer big enough to store it?;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

What makes you think tax cuts don't optimize the unemployment situation?

Cut my taxes enough, I can hire another guy.

You don't believe that?

---

Sure you can.

---

How do you think wealth is perpetuated, anyway?

Money doesn't accrue interest absent the employment of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Sure you can.

---

How do you think wealth is perpetuated, anyway?

Money doesn't accrue interest absent the employment of people.

---

Businesses find ways to do more with less all the time. Heard of outsourcing?

Do you think if we totally eliminated taxes that business would insource those jobs back to the US? You underestimate greed. You must think joeblow business owner is civic-minded.

My company is running fiber to folks homes. Lines can then be cut on with the flick of switch. The only saving grace is that we are now offering television.

The biggest roadblock to this wasn't taxes but a law requiring major telcos to share their networks. My company wasn't going to build a major fiber network and have to share it.

How do I think wealth is perpetuated? Apparently with perpetual tax cuts.:ermm:

Lets become a nation of executives and grunts.

Hmmm Pelosi wins, Murtha loses.

Hoyer is the number 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

How do you think wealth is perpetuated, anyway?

Money doesn't accrue interest absent the employment of people.

---

Businesses find ways to do more with less all the time. Heard of outsourcing?

Do you think if we totally eliminated taxes that business would insource those jobs back to the US? You underestimate greed. You must think joeblow business owner is civic-minded.

My company is running fiber to folks homes. Lines can then be cut on with the flick of switch. The only saving grace is that we are now offering television.

The biggest roadblock to this wasn't taxes but a law requiring major telcos to share their networks. My company wasn't going to build a major fiber network and have to share it.

How do I think wealth is perpetuated? Apparently with perpetual tax cuts.:ermm:

Lets become a nation of executives and grunts.

---

Tax cuts result in money to be invested in making more of same.

It's really very simple.

Okay, now, you're running fiber-optic cable, right?

You say, "My company wasn't going to build a major fiber network and have to share it."

Tell me now, how do you justify your company's piggybacking on another company's network, not because you have compensated the company which built the network, but because some bullshit law says that that company is legally compelled to do what your own company will not?

I see the nicotine patches haven't worked, the repubs can't quit the Marlboro Man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Businesses find ways to do more with less all the time. Heard of outsourcing?

Do you think if we totally eliminated taxes that business would insource those jobs back to the US? You underestimate greed. You must think joeblow business owner is civic-minded.

My company is running fiber to folks homes. Lines can then be cut on with the flick of switch. The only saving grace is that we are now offering television.

The biggest roadblock to this wasn't taxes but a law requiring major telcos to share their networks. My company wasn't going to build a major fiber network and have to share it.

How do I think wealth is perpetuated? Apparently with perpetual tax cuts.:ermm:

Lets become a nation of executives and grunts.

---

Tax cuts result in money to be invested in making more of same.

It's really very simple.

Okay, now, you're running fiber-optic cable, right?

You say, "My company wasn't going to build a major fiber network and have to share it."

Tell me now, how do you justify your company's piggybacking on another company's network, not because you have compensated the company which built the network, but because some bullshit law says that that company is legally compelled to do what your own company will not?

---

:dog:Run-On:dog:

What?:blink:


Tax cuts can result in that but so can profits.

Btw, should taxes be cut more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Tax cuts result in money to be invested in making more of same.

It's really very simple.

Okay, now, you're running fiber-optic cable, right?

You say, "My company wasn't going to build a major fiber network and have to share it."

Tell me now, how do you justify your company's piggybacking on another company's network, not because you have compensated the company which built the network, but because some bullshit law says that that company is legally compelled to do what your own company will not?

---

:dog:Run-On:dog:

What?:blink:


Tax cuts can result in that but so can profits.

Btw, should taxes be cut more?

---

Taxes could always be cut more, given our spendthrift legislators.

You say your company wasn't going to "build a major fiber network and have to share it".

Why not build one and not share it, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

:dog:Run-On:dog:

What?:blink:


Tax cuts can result in that but so can profits.

Btw, should taxes be cut more?

---

Taxes could always be cut more, given our spendthrift legislators.

You say your company wasn't going to "build a major fiber network and have to share it".

Why not build one and not share it, then?

---

They are buiding one and not sharing it.:blink:

The problem with your first is that the spendthrifting has not been curbed.

You still cannot have perpetual tax cuts.

Why have taxes at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[
The problem with your first is that the spendthrifting has not been curbed.

You are on the verge of understanding my point.

The problem is that we've had a Republican congress, not a Conservative one.

You still cannot have perpetual tax cuts.

The tax cuts we have can certainly be abided.

Why have taxes at all?

---

Here's the joke:

We need to tax in order to defend our country and it's borders.

That's become a point of utter hilarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[
The problem with your first is that the spendthrifting has not been curbed.

You are on the verge of understanding my point.

The problem is that we've had a Republican congress, not a Conservative one.

You don't say.:dabs: They are a joke calling themselves "conservative".

You still cannot have perpetual tax cuts.

The tax cuts we have can certainly be abided.

No, not at this point. This administration has spent us to fuck-all.

This is not the time for lower taxes, of all things.

How about higher taxes coupled with rules for earmarks and a balanced budget?

Why have taxes at all?

---

Here's the joke:

We need to tax in order to defend our country and it's borders.

That's become a point of utter hilarity.

---

No, but really. Why have taxes at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Here's the joke:

We need to tax in order to defend our country and it's borders.

That's become a point of utter hilarity.

---

No, but really. Why have taxes at all?

---

Re-read the emboldened script.

Really.