Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think anyone who ever voted D will have to bear some penance for Rangel on this board, because of all those "Bush Is A Murderer" bumper stickers that were in my driveway.

So, we should take P as being in self-flagellation mode when posting about it? Or assume it's directed primarily at Hank?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man

His autobiography was interesting, nd he seems like a decent guy.

Before y'all crap all over him -- an easy target -- be aware that the counsel for the House Ethics Committee (leading the investigation) has testified that he found no evidence of corruption (i.e. intentional milking the position for personal gain), but a fair amount of sloppiness and disregard for those details called rules.

In my mind, that does make a difference.

S_A_M

So the tax fraud (I'm considering him well enough informed to be liable for fraud--if he isn't, it's a meaningless standard) is merely a "disregard for details"?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

as a Jewish family, when the subject of Germany or Austria comes up, it isn't possible to not also mention the holocaust- for the millionith time, but still.

Why don't you get some new material, instead of fashioning every response to any topic into the 3 jokes you have that have never* been funny?

TM

*ever.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Why don't you get some new material, instead of fashioning every response to any topic into the 3 jokes you have that have never* been funny?

TM

*ever.

I'm not sure this is good advice. Under current conditions, I know to just ignore Hank because he'll be using one of those 3 jokes. But if he starts using new material, I will be tempted to read it, and in likelihood just as disappointed as I was the first few times I read the 3 standard jokes.

Plus, at least he didn't use the scorekeeping joke.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Why don't you get some new material, instead of fashioning every response to any topic into the 3 jokes you have that have never* been funny?

TM

*ever.

You see 3 different jokes? Wow. Cool. Although maybe that means I've devoted too much time to this?

[Adder]

Republicans hold up vital national security interests to secure yet more profligate spending.

But, of course, there is nothing to see here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Republicans hold up vital national security interests to secure yet more profligate spending.

But, of course, there is nothing to see here.

it sounds like the guy feels there is a substantive thing he should get that fixes something he thinks is wrong. that is to you "just playing politics?"


Serious question. you don't see any merit to the man taking that position?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

it sounds like the guy feels there is a substantive thing he should get that fixes something he thinks is wrong.

The "thing" is he wants more spending on nuclear weapons. Personally, I do not see that as substantive problem, nor do I see it as a good reason to keep us in the dark about what is going on with Russia's arsenal when Russia is willing to allow us to have inspections.

that is to you "just playing politics?"

I did not say that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

The "thing" is he wants more spending on nuclear weapons.

he says he wants to "modernize" them. do you know if that means making sure they are up to date and maintained? or do you think he just wants to build a bunch more?

if I was a R senator I would not to concerned about pushing things through that can wait until January.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

he says he wants to "modernize" them. do you know if that means making sure they are up to date and maintained? or do you think he just wants to build a bunch more?

if I was a R senator I would not to concerned about pushing things through that can wait until January.

2. I trust the vote on the Bush tax cuts can wait, right?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

he says he wants to "modernize" them.
do you know if that means making sure they are up to date and maintained? or do you think he just wants to build a bunch more?

I don't know specifically what he means, but I would assume that the bulk of $84+ billon that he wants to spend is to build new weapon to replace the existing ones.

if I was a R senator I would not to concerned about pushing things through that can wait until January.

Especially not when you might be able to extract even more spending then, like the $100+ he wants to spend on planes, boats and submarines.

But part of my point is that this sounds like a situation in which waiting carries some pretty unambiguous national security costs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't know specifically what he means, but I would assume that the bulk of $84+ billon that he wants to spend is to build new weapon to replace the existing ones.



Especially not when you might be able to extract even more spending then, like the $100+ he wants to spend on planes, boats and submarines.

But part of my point is that this sounds like a situation in which waiting carries some pretty unambiguous national security costs.

waiting between 11/17 and 1/1? I'm not arguing, I know nothing about the treaty or the guy's hang up, but what cost is there in waiting a month and a half?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

waiting between 11/17 and 1/1? I'm not arguing, I know nothing about the treaty or the guy's hang up, but what cost is there in waiting a month and a half?

It is likely to be much longer than a month and a half.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

It is likely to be much longer than a month and a half.

You act like people care about spending.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You act like people care about spending.

if we have a nuclear arsenal shouldn't we keep it in working order? isn't a main fear that russia has allowed it's to degrade?