Obama calls on Dems to reject Blagojevich nomination to Senate

CtrlSource

Barack Obama has rightly urged Senate Democrats to make good on their pledge to refuse the confirmation of Roland Burris to the Senate.

That Blagojevich fella has some brass neck!


From BBC News:

Obama rejects Senate replacement

Barack Obama says he agrees with Senate Democrats that they should not accept the man chosen by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to replace him as senator.

Mr Blagojevich is the subject of a criminal inquiry and has been charged with attempting to "sell" Mr Obama's now-vacant seat to the highest bidder.

The governor defied pressure and picked Roland Burris, the state's former attorney general, to fill the position. The controversy is set to hang over the Senate when it convenes on 6 January. Democratic senators have vowed to veto anyone appointed by Mr Blagojevich.

The president-elect said he agreed the Senate "cannot accept" a new senator chosen by Mr Blagojevich, adding that Mr Blagojevich himself should resign.

Mr Blagojevich, himself a Democrat, denies wrongdoing and has rejected calls for his resignation.

Mr Burris, 71, became the first African-American to be elected to statewide office in Illinois when he won the 1978 election to be state comptroller. He was state attorney general from 1991 to 1995 and made unsuccessful bids for the US Senate and the Illinois governorship, including in 2002, when he lost in the Democratic primary to Mr Blagojevich.

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant," said Mr Obama.
"But the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision."

Appearing with Mr Burris to announce his choice, Mr Blagojevich said: "Please don't allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man."

But Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate was not impressed.
"It is truly regrettable that... Governor Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety," said Mr Reid.
"Anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and ... will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus."

However comments by Illinois Representative Bobby Rush indicated that charges of racism may hang over the Senate if it does not allow Mr Burris to take his seat.

"There are no African-Americans in the Senate. And I don't think anyone, any US senator who's sitting in the Senate right now, wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the US Senate," Mr Rush said.

The Constitution gives the Senate wide powers to determine who can be seated in the chamber, but the authority is not absolute. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the House of Representatives had acted unconstitutionally when it excluded a congressman, Adam Clayton Powell, who had been accused of financial impropriety.

Adding to the complications, the Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, has said he will refuse to certify the paperwork Mr Blagojevich must present to the Senate regarding Mr Burris's appointment.

An internal review conducted by the Obama team concluded last week that neither the president-elect, nor his staff, had had any "inappropriate discussions" with Mr Blagojevich about who should fill the seat.

Mr Blagojevich has vowed to "fight the false accusations" made by what he has termed a "political lynch mob". The Illinois state legislature has formed a committee to investigate the possibility of impeaching Mr Blagojevich.

There have been calls from many politicians, including Mr Obama, for the governor to step down. He was charged on 9 December with a number of offences including soliciting a bribe.

The charges relate to a variety of corruption schemes in which the governor was allegedly involved, including so-called "pay to play" deals - the doling out of jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.

On the day of his arrest, investigators released transcripts of conversations between Mr Blagojevich and others intercepted by court-authorised wiretaps.

In the conversations, the Democratic governor allegedly discussed offering Mr Obama's Senate seat in return for a well-paid position at a non-profit organisation or a group affiliated with trades unions, according to the affidavit.

Pocono Joe

And ya’ll thought the Republicans were out of control. Welcome to the America run by Democrats. The next 4 years will be just fantastic*. What A Long Strange Trip It'll Be!


* Fan.tas.tic [fan-tas-tik]; adjective
1. Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque.
2. Fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions.
3. Imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational.
4. Extravagantly fanciful.
5. Incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant.
6. Highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish.

Tom10

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And ya’ll thought the Republicans were out of control. Welcome to the America run by Democrats. The next 4 years will be just fantastic*. What A Long Strange Trip It'll Be!


* Fan.tas.tic [fan-tas-tik]; adjective
1. Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque.
2. Fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions.
3. Imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational.
4. Extravagantly fanciful.
5. Incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant.
6. Highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish.

How could it be any worse than what has occured over the last 8 years, I mean comparing where the worlds economy was then to the state it is in now, well there's quiet a difference and all on the Republicans clock.

I don't see it getting worse - well i do but only before it gets better

Pocono Joe

Tom10 wrote: »

How could it be any worse than what has occured over the last 8 years, I mean comparing where the worlds economy was then to the state it is in now, well there's quiet a difference and all on the Republicans clock.

Well... if one’s rational is to blame the President of the US for anything that happens to the economy while he is in office, then I guess the statement makes sense (now we have lots more to blame Bill Clinton for).

But the Democrats have been in control of congress for two years now. Look back and you will see the Republicans have for many years (with especially high resolve back in 2002) warned of the problems with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - that which started the economic decline, and begged for better controls or face collapse. But their pleas fell on deaf ears. I guess the Republicans look like geniuses now, although you will never hear that from the GOP hating press.

Tom10

That is a good point, no doubting that, but the fact that the warned about this situation in 2002 and were in control of the country until 2006 says a lot. They said "we have this problem here and things could go wrong if we don't fix it", they were in power for 4 more years and didn't do a thing. And while the democrats were in control since 2006, they can't do much unless they president will back them in their proposals which was never going to be the case with President Bush.

brianthebard

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And ya’ll thought the Republicans were out of control. Welcome to the America run by Democrats. The next 4 years will be just fantastic*. What A Long Strange Trip It'll Be!


* Fan.tas.tic [fan-tas-tik]; adjective
1. Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque.
2. Fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions.
3. Imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational.
4. Extravagantly fanciful.
5. Incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant.
6. Highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish.

That doesn't make sense, Obama is making the senate accountable and preventing Blago from appointing the person he picked. That's quite a different situation to...whatever it is you are trying to defend. And failing.

Pocono Joe

brianthebard wrote: »

Obama is making the senate accountable and preventing Blago from appointing the person he picked.

Words... just words. So is Obama rewriting the Constitution or just ignoring it? Neither he nor the Senate have the authority to stop the appointment... only to change the situation after the appointment is already seated.

CtrlSource

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Words... just words.

Begrudgery!

So is Obama rewriting the Constitution or just ignoring it? Neither he nor the Senate have the authority to stop the appointment... only to change the situation after the appointment is already seated.

*yawn*

Oh did i tell you? The worst President in the history of the United States will be leaving office in 19 days!

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

But the Democrats have been in control of congress for two years now.

If I recall, the US Congress has two (2) bodies, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate? The Democrates won control of only the US House two years ago, but not the US Senate, consequently, the Democrats have not "been in control of congress for two years now."

I wonder why the Republicans lost control of the US House two years ago? I wonder why the Republicans will lose control of the US Senate this January 2009? I wonder why the Republicans are losing the presidency after 8 years of controlling it? Was it because the Republicans were doing such an outstanding job?

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And ya’ll thought the Republicans were out of control. Welcome to the America run by Democrats. The next 4 years will be just fantastic*.

4? Given the level of disaffection due to the outgoing admin, I'd say ye might double that....

Pocono Joe

I don’t think our economy could withstand 8 years of Obama at the helm, unless he moves completely to the center and snubs the Liberal and Green juggernaut that helped get him into office… which I don’t see happening for more than 2 years (not if he has hopes of a second term). Can you say Jimmy Carter... Deja Vu All Over Again!

brianthebard

He's in the centre already. :rolleyes: I wonder if you actually believe the stuff you post?

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I wonder why the Republicans lost control of the US House two years ago? I wonder why the Republicans will lose control of the US Senate this January 2009? I wonder why the Republicans are losing the presidency after 8 years of controlling it? Was it because the Republicans were doing such an outstanding job?

I think its because the Republican Politicians didn’t act like Republicans. When they decide to get their act together and back to fiscal conservatism, things will change... ‘till then Blue Dog Democrats will continue to improve their lot.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I don’t think our economy could withstand 8 years of Obama at the helm,

....wouldn't that statement require a period of Obama in charge for a basis?

Pocono Joe

Probably... but I look at his history on voting (including his “Present” votes which are telling), the promises he made in the campaign, the choices in personnel he is making for his administration (although a couple have been surprisingly good). And the biggest… Spending is still on top of his list.

Now, you would think the fact that the last 8 years have been pretty good for most of us would mean something to people here… but I don’t see the facts getting in the way of most posters antagonistic opinions.

A little something to set history right… WARNING! Do not click through if you wish to remain in denial that the past 8 years have been nothing but horrible.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20081222/cm_rcp/myths_and_facts_about_the_real;_ylt=Aj914wD6xxiL3BV7lVjUtt79wxIF

The Mad Hatter

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I think its because the Republican Politicians didn’t act like Republicans. When they decide to get their act together and back to fiscal conservatism, things will change... ‘till then Blue Dog Democrats will continue to improve their lot.

Actually, we agree here. I think the Republican party might actually be worth voting for if they moved away from the Christian lunacy, military gung-ho attitudes and destruction of the rights of their citizens that has typified them for the last decade or so (at least). At least a rational argument could be made for this position.

For the moment, the US needs a democrat in charge in order to improve their appalling standards of public education and health services. The only way to bring these services up to scratch is through higher taxation.

JohnMc1

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I don’t think our economy could withstand 8 years of Obama at the helm, unless he moves completely to the center and snubs the Liberal and Green juggernaut that helped get him into office…

Time will tell if he gets re-elected. Let's see what he does for the next few months. If Obama is smart he'll stay in the center. The last thing the US needs right now is radicalism. From the left or the right. Hopefully he won't cave to the "We got you in. You owe us." crowd.

As for the Blago-Burris situation concerned. Hopefully Obama and the Dems will keep their word and not seat Burris. There is too much controversy around this and this is not what Obama or the new Dem controlled Congress needs.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Actually, we agree here. I think the Republican party might actually be worth voting for if they moved away from the Christian lunacy, military gung-ho attitudes and destruction of the rights of their citizens that has typified them for the last decade or so (at least). At least a rational argument could be made for this position.

I've seen just as many if not more loony atheists than Christians. The Dems cater more to the secular-progressives so stick to that group.

As far as War goes. Both parties voted for both wars. So the Reps= War-Mongers and Dictators and the Dems= Tree Hugging hippies is very false. Both parties will vote for a war if they feel its in their parties best interests.

For the moment, the US needs a democrat in charge in order to improve their appalling standards of public education and health services. The only way to bring these services up to scratch is through higher taxation.

Taxes will go up thanks to the bailouts. Other than that those issues are handled on a state level.

Tom10

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Probably... but I look at his history on voting (including his “Present” votes which are telling), the promises he made in the campaign, the choices in personnel he is making for his administration (although a couple have been surprisingly good). And the biggest… Spending is still on top of his list.

Now, you would think the fact that the last 8 years have been pretty good for most of us would mean something to people here… but I don’t see the facts getting in the way of most posters antagonistic opinions.

A little something to set history right… WARNING! Do not click through if you wish to remain in denial that the past 8 years have been nothing but horrible.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20081222/cm_rcp/myths_and_facts_about_the_real;_ylt=Aj914wD6xxiL3BV7lVjUtt79wxIF

That was writen by a counselor to President Bush, how can you possible quote that as an accurate source for your argument. I mean there is no chance of that being balanced and fair in any real terms - Very bad point!!!

Manic Moran

The legal arguments are continuing as to whether or not the Senate can refuse to sear Burris. The more I look into it, the more I agree that they cannot do so.

NTM

The Mad Hatter

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I've seen just as many if not more loony atheists than Christians. The Dems cater more to the secular-progressives so stick to that group.

Oh, please. What are the atheists going to do, write a book at you? The fundamentalist Christian bigots who people like Bush and Palin cater towards are a danger to both the US internally and to the world at large. I'm aware that one can be both religious and a democrat, and these people I have no issue with.

As far as War goes. Both parties voted for both wars. So the Reps= War-Mongers and Dictators and the Dems= Tree Hugging hippies is very false. Both parties will vote for a war if they feel its in their parties best interests.

Yes, and both parties were mislead into believing that a war was in their best interests by a republican presidency. I admit that the views above are generally false, but the republican party has done very little to shed theirs in recent years.

Taxes will go up thanks to the bailouts. Other than that those issues are handled on a state level.

Which is obviously working very well...

JohnMc1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Oh, please. What are the atheists going to do, write a book at you? The fundamentalist Christian bigots

Yeah we all know the left doesn't have any bigots that are ready to play the race card for the least little disagreement. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes, and both parties were mislead into believing that a war was in their best interests by a republican presidency. I admit that the views above are generally false, but the republican party has done very little to shed theirs in recent years.

And yet people will clap and cheer if/when Obama sends the troops into Afghanistan.

Which is obviously working very well...

Your point is? If you're trying to play gotcha with me its not going to work. I was and still am against the bailouts.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I think its because the Republican Politicians didn’t act like Republicans.

So when do the Republicans "act like Republicans" and not something else? I am confused. I thought that character and integrity were important to the Republicans? You are telling me that there are times when Republicans are not Republicans? (Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Spin Factor!)

Maybe someone should go to the US Congress (both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate when in session), ignoring the side of the isle they tend to sit on, and yell out "Will the REAL Republicans please stand up" and do a nose count? Of course, it might depend upon what day, month, or year you yelled out that would make a difference?

What? Does anyone see the craic in this?:pac::D

The Mad Hatter

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yeah we all know the left doesn't have any bigots that are ready to play the race card for the least little disagreement. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

What does that have to do with atheism and Christianity? And what does it have to do with bigotry?

And yet people will clap and cheer if/when Obama sends the troops into Afghanistan.

Which he only has to do to sort out the mess made by a republican presidency.

Your point is? If you're trying to play gotcha with me its not going to work. I was and still am against the bailouts.

What? I was talking about the health service and public schools. Try to keep up.

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So when do the Republicans "act like Republicans" and not something else? I am confused. I

Sorry, Don’t mean to confuse you more so. I tend to use the term Republicans when referring to Conservatives, although Conservatives would never be mistaken for Democrats.

It’s rather simple... When Republicans spend like drunken Democrats is what I mean when I state that Republicans don’t act like Republicans.

JohnMc1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What does that have to do with atheism and Christianity? And what does it have to do with bigotry?

You brought up bigotry. Don't cry when it gets thrown back in your face.

Which he only has to do to sort out the mess made by a republican presidency.

I actually meant to say Pakistan. My point is still the same. If Bush said he's sending troops into Pakistan the liberals would call him a dictator and a tyrant but if/when Obama sends them into Pakistan [that was part of his campaign.] people will cheer him and call him a defender of democracy.

What? I was talking about the health service and public schools. Try to keep up.

Your sarcastic comment was on how well the bailouts were working. Don't change your tune now just because you were busted.

mikemac

Leaving aside the corruption part, is it right to be sending a 71 year old on a 6 year senate term?

Yes you can reply with other examples of senators who are older but it's what I noticed about post 1

JohnMc1

mikemac wrote: »

Leaving aside the corruption part, is it right to be sending a 71 year old on a 6 year senate term?

Yes you can reply with other examples of senators who are older but it's what I noticed about post 1

Right as in Legal? Yes. Scandal aside Burris does meet the requirements needed to be a Senator. Besides he's only going to finish Obama's Senate [which is about 3-4 years left IIRC] After that he has to run for election for his own term.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sorry, Don’t mean to confuse you more so. I tend to use the term Republicans when referring to Conservatives, although Conservatives would never be mistaken for Democrats.

Well, I've heard that there are many Democrats in the South that are both conservative (and right wing fundamentalist religious), many of whom identified with, and voted for McCain-Palin in 2008 (especially with Sarah Palin being both conservative and fundamentalist on the ticket). So to claim that all Democrats are liberal or middle-of-the-road is in error. The same holds true for Republicans. I would guess that most tend towards the middle, because if they didn't, they would not get elected given the fact that there are a lot fewer registered Republicans than Democrats in many states, especially those with large populations.

That raises yet another question. If the Republicans have the best interests of most American citizens in mind, why are they in the minority in terms of numbers of registered voters in America?

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

That raises yet another question. If the Republicans have the best interests of most American citizens in mind, why are they in the minority in terms of numbers of registered voters in America?

Maybe because we don’t require a person to have at least an IQ of 120 to vote (I’d never make it as a politician :rolleyes:).

The US population is sadly moving towards an entitlement state… and the Democratic party appeals to this mentality.

JohnMc1

Most US schools are liberal slanted [especially Colleges/Universities] so it should come as no surprise that College kids are registered as Democrats. I'm a registered Democrat. I registered to vote when I enrolled in College.

Pocono Joe

What in the world is going on with Democratic Governors (and other Democrats like Charlie Rangle, Al Franken and his ACORN connection, and even Rahm Emanuel)? Governor “Let’s make a deal” Rod Blagojevich (D) remains in office as his pick for U.S. Senate, Roland Burris (D), heads to Washington today. And now New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) announces that he is withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama's commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract. And recently we’ve seen contempt and scandal from the Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey (D), and NY Governor Client-9 (D). Even James Carville (Bill Clinton’s former campaign manager) is predicting the Democratic Party will suffer a series of embarrassing scandals in 2009… NO WAY! Are there any honest Democrats left? Should we change the term Democrat to Corruptacrat? And who are the odds-makers saying is the next Democrat-In-Disgrace. My guess is Pennsylvania Governor Fast Eddy, as BONUSGATE probably goes all the way to the top.

JohnMc1

Pocono Joe wrote: »

What in the world is going on with Democratic Governors (and other Democrats like Charlie Rangle, Al Franken and his ACORN connection, and even Rahm Emanuel)? Governor “Let’s make a deal” Rod Blagojevich (D) remains in office as his pick for U.S. Senate, Roland Burris (D), heads to Washington today. And now New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) announces that he is withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama's commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract. And recently we’ve seen contempt and scandal from the Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey (D), and NY Governor Client-9 (D). Even James Carville (Bill Clinton’s former campaign manager) is predicting the Democratic Party will suffer a series of embarrassing scandals in 2009… NO WAY! Are there any honest Democrats left? Should we change the term Democrat to Corruptacrat? And who are the odds-makers saying is the next Democrat-In-Disgrace. My guess is Pennsylvania Governor Fast Eddy, as BONUSGATE probably goes all the way to the top.

Well Obama himself said that Democrats always find a way to mess up. With all this scandal from Chicago and now Richardson I don't know whether I should feel sorry for him or think he's a bigger idiot than they made Pres Bush out to be for not knowing any of these people were idiots.

mikemac

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Right as in Legal? Yes. Scandal aside Burris does meet the requirements needed to be a Senator. Besides he's only going to finish Obama's Senate [which is about 3-4 years left IIRC] After that he has to run for election for his own term.

I wasn’t realy aiming at a legal point, I defer to your knowledge there. I was just reading Post 1 and of all the candidates they could have picked, nobody is bothered the potential next senator is 71.

Not an issue for most people it seems but something I’d think about if they were representing me though I realise there has has been older officals then that in all branches of government.

Pocono Joe

I would wait to feel sorry for Obama until after the press decides to do their job and some reporting on a whole bunch of shady things including Vera Baker and Cape Caribbean, LLC. But sure as hell won’t happen until after he takes the oath of office.

JohnMc1

mikemac wrote: »

I wasn’t realy aiming at a legal point, I defer to your knowledge there. I was just reading Post 1 and of all the candidates they could have picked, nobody is bothered the potential next senator is 71.

Not an issue for most people it seems but something I’d think about if they were representing me though I realise there has has been older officals then that in all branches of government.

No prob. Just wanted to make sure.

Pocono Joe wrote:

I would wait to feel sorry for Obama until after the press decides to do their job and some reporting on a whole bunch of shady things including Vera Baker and Cape Caribbean, LLC. But sure as hell won’t happen until after he takes the oath of office.

The press that were cheerleading for him aren't even covering the Blago scandal [and if they do they go out their way not to print his party affiliation] they won't mention any of this Richardson stuff or anything else that could negatively effect him.

banquo

Lovin' the sig, Mad Hatter

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And now New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) announces that he is withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama's commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract

It would appear that Richardson is not much different than the current Republican leadership over the past 8 years? What's the old kid game called? Follow the leader? Connect the dots: Republican Vice President Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton donates to the Bush-Cheney campaign. The US attacks Iraq, resulting in a lot of destruction. Halliburton gets a multi-billion dollar contract to rebuild Iraq (And does not have to worry about the typical competitive bid process for US government contracts! Never heard of government contracts being handed out without first going to competitive bid. I wonder why Halliburton didn't have to compete...duh!).

Republican US Senator John McCain receives campaign contribution monies over the years from convicted criminals G. Gordon Liddy (of the Republican Watergate criminal break-in scandal) and Charles Keating. And in the last case, McCain flies 9 times at Keating's expense to Keating's posh Cat Cay Bahamas island resort to frolic in the sun with the rich and famous (while McCain represents Keating before bank regulators that question the stability and potential fraud of Lincoln Savings & Loan, which became the largest financial institution failure in US history... up until 2008... costing taxpayers billions...). Follow the leader?

Need I mention Republican US Senator Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in US history? We could play a card game of sorts. I'll bid you one corrupt Republican Alaskan US Senator, one convicted criminal Republican Vice President Spiro Agnew, and one Impeachable Republican President Nixon against your currently under investigation Democrat Governor of Illinois and Democrat Governor of New Mexico. Do you see me? Do you want another card dealt from the bottom of the deck?

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Are there any honest Democrats left? Should we change the term Democrat to Corruptacrat?

The same could be said about Republicans? Are there any honest Republicans left? I know! Maybe the corrupt Democrats and corrupt Republicans should form a new party and call it what you have suggested... Corruptacrat... dropping the "c" at the end, leaving "rat." With so many qualifiers from both parties, what was left would be so small that the current two-party system would wither away and the US would then have a one-party state just like the former CCCP or the current PRC.

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Connect the dots: Republican Vice President Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton donates to the Bush-Cheney campaign. The US attacks Iraq, resulting in a lot of destruction. Halliburton gets a multi-billion dollar contract to rebuild Iraq (And does not have to worry about the typical competitive bid process for US government contracts! Never heard of government contracts being handed out without first going to competitive bid. I wonder why Halliburton didn't have to compete...duh!).

LOL... quite entertaining! I’d love to see your version of the JFK “magic bullet” theory... I bet it would involve aliens, and of course George Bush and Dick Cheney.

And just one little question about Halliburton… Is there any other company in the world that does what they do in regard to our (USA) needs in the middle east? And remember Bill Clinton used Halliburton quite extensively.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And just one little question about Halliburton… Is there any other company in the world that does what they do in regard to our (USA) needs in the middle east? And remember Bill Clinton used Halliburton quite extensively.

I know it's hard to believe that there is another corporation on this planet that can do what Halliburton can do, especially if you believe as a matter of Republican faith that the GW Bush administration, through their beloved VP Dick Cheney (former CEO of Halliburton), was acting in the best interests of the American people. There are several US international corporations, including the Parsons Corporation, a direct competitor of Halliburton:

"Parsons is a leader in many diverse markets such as infrastructure, transportation, water, telecommunications, aviation, commercial, environmental, industrial manufacturing, education, healthcare, life sciences and homeland security. Parsons provides technical and management solutions to federal, regional and local government agencies as well as private industries worldwide." Source: http://www.parsons.com/

Bechtel Corporation is another (which, by the way, Daddy Bush worked for once upon a time). Source: http://www.bechtel.com/

Fluor Corporation yet another. Source: http://www.fluor.com/Pages/Default.aspx

Furthermore, in terms of the Fortune 500 ranking of US Corporations by 2008 revenue, Fluor was ranked #148 ($16.6 billion), while Halliburton was ranked lower at #167 ($15.2 billion). Source: http://www.fortunesmallbusiness.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_list/101_200.html

And the federal audit of Halliburton's contract work in Iraq exhibits the quality one would expect from the GW Bush Administration?

Updated 2/15/2007 12:27 PM

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government is at risk of squandering significantly more money in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has already wasted or otherwise overcharged taxpayers billions of dollars, federal investigators said Thursday.

The three top auditors overseeing contract work in Iraq told a House committee of $10 billion in spending that was wasteful or poorly tracked. They pointed to numerous instances in which Defense and State department officials condoned or otherwise allowed poor accounting, repeated work delays, bloated expenses and payments for work shoddily or never done by U.S. contractors.

Of the $10 billion in overpriced contracts or undocumented costs, more than $2.7 billion were charged by Halliburton Co., the oil-field services firm once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney."

And last but not least, the following was so typical of your posts in the political forum, going completely off-topic and attacking the person rather than addressing the issue. Where have I addressed this "magic bullet theory" you mention in this thread, or the introduction of "aliens" as a part of my argument that corruption was rife in both the Republican and Democratic parties, and that what the Illinois Governor Blagojevich was accused of doing was business as usual in American politics?

Pocono Joe wrote: »

LOL... quite entertaining! I’d love to see your version of the JFK “magic bullet” theory... I bet it would involve aliens, and of course George Bush and Dick Cheney.

CtrlSource

Oh Joe! Settle in there now and get nice 'n comfy for about... the next 8 years!

Pocono Joe

Blue Lagoon, quite an impressive bit of work there, kudos to you! I know there are other companies that do similar work to Halliburton, but won’t do them in “Hot Spots” as Halliburton does (that was the case in 2004 or 2005 when I researched it). But I might be wrong today, the ones you listed might now be willing to do work in areas where their employees have a high risk of being killed.

And weren’t you the one who went off-topic in response to my post about Democrat Governors... going into a rant about Republicans, Cheney and Halliburton. Complaints from the boards best spin doctor… you’re confusing me there girl!

Also you might be too young to remember, but the Democrats started their push back in 2006 to take back congress with “promised bipartisanship, cooperation, and a new level of honesty and integrity in Washington.” WHAT A CROCK!

And look at what Pelosi just did by pushing through a rule change to curb the GOP’s rights to affect legislation and new restrictions on motions to “recommit” a bill to the committee that approved it in order to add new amendments. It essentially shuts down open debate. Sure not the kind of openness and transparency that Obama promised. This rule change would create the most closed Congress in history. So, how are you gonna spin that to Bush/Cheney and Halliburton?

By the end of 2009 I think we will be longing for the Republican years… that is if we have any individual rights left. Better go pick up that Glock I've had my eyes on, before another Constitutional Right is taken away by the Dems.

- - - -

CtrlSource... 8 years??? I doubt it. Looking more and more like the Mayans were right... 12/21/2012.

turgon

Pocono Joe wrote: »

By the end of 2009 I think we will be longing for the Republican years

You keep on referring to "we" and the like. I think your trying to give impression that "we" is somehow everyone; but in truth "we" is only those who have benefited from Bush.

"We" are certainly not the Afgans and the Iraqies, who have had their country's invaded in the name of "peace".
It definitely not the Palestinians who are still suffering from the American policy of "Israel is right full stop".
Its not the Europeans, who are getting the tragic effects of American deregulation.
And its not any one else, because in truth we are all going to be suffering from Global Warming as a result of American industrial selfishness and greed that is still allowed to ferment by dodging Kyoto.

Get a grip buddy.

CtrlSource

Pocono Joe wrote: »

CtrlSource... 8 years??? I doubt it. Looking more and more like the Mayans were right... 12/21/2012.

Aww don't worry, 'course it'll be 8. You just gotta have faith!

Pocono Joe

You keep on referring to "we" and the like. I think your trying to give impression that "we" is somehow everyone; but in truth "we" is only those who have benefited from Bush.
Okay, “WE” is not an all-encompassing term. But many more people benefited from Bush than you may think. And I find it ironic that you then go on to group entire peoples into the rest of your post… pot calling the kettle black?

"We" are certainly not the Afgans and the Iraqies, who have had their country's invaded in the name of "peace".
Some of the Afgan women who are given a death sentence by the Taliban just because they get an education might disagree. Some of the Iraqi Kurds, Shias, others and their families who where subjected to rape and torture rooms, gassed, or outright killed under Sadam Hussein’s regime might disagree.

It definitely not the Palestinians who are still suffering from the American policy of "Israel is right full stop".
Arabs and Jews have been fighting for thousands of years. They have been fighting long before there was a GOP or even an America for that matter, and will be fighting longer after a Barack Obama.

Its not the Europeans, who are getting the tragic effects of American deregulation.
Somewhat agreed (but to insinuate Europeans bear no blame in the global economic problems… HA!) by majority fault of the Democrats. It was the GOP that fought to have regulation on the lending institutions.

And its not any one else, because in truth we are all going to be suffering from Global Warming as a result of American industrial selfishness and greed that is still allowed to ferment by dodging Kyoto.
Kyoto-Shmyoto! Bush worked to address climate change by launching the Major Economies Process, which convened the leaders of the world's major economies, both developed and developing, to work on ways to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy security without harming our economies or giving any nation a free ride. Also, Bush set the country on course to stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions below projected levels by 2025 and invested more than $44 billion in climate change-related programs.
(more good reading on this matter: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/myths_and_facts_about_the_real.html)
How have the other countries that signed onto the Kyoto agreement been doing?

Get a grip buddy.
Grip gotten!

Pocono Joe

Update on the original posting of this thread…

NO BURRIS!
NO WAY!
NO HOW!
Never Mind!



(Gotta love the Dems)

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Blue Lagoon, quite an impressive bit of work there, kudos to you!

Bad B!ue faints. Paramedics race in with oxygen, checking all her vitals. "She must of had a huge shock," they comment as they haul her off to hospital.

Pocono Joe

Try to give someone a compliment, and see what I get...

A short little poem for you to enjoy during your hospital stay.


A political junkie
A biased view
Young and misguided
Her name is B!ue

Right wing
Left wing
Center too
Conservative
Liberal
Don’t mess with B!ue

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Try to give someone a compliment, and see what I get...

A short little poem for you to enjoy during your hospital stay.

LOL! I'm just having fun. I guess you are too? You have a creative streak methinks you should show more often.

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

LOL! I'm just having fun. I guess you are too? You have a creative streak methinks you should show more often.

Yup, just having a little fun at your expense… hope you didn’t take too much offense. Your post made me laugh also.

And I once wrote a poem (a take on A Christmas Carol) lampooning something ESPN had screwed up royally, and it got national press and attention. It also got 25,000 nasty vocal amateur and professional bass anglers pissed at me. I guess I just have an uncanny knack for rubbing people wrong. I think I’ll just stick to being a GOP hack from now on.

bnt

Oi! Back on topic: Blogojevich is going to be impeached.

Pocono Joe

Yeah, back on topic. Impeached just means Blago was indicted. He is only being charged with wrongdoing. I wonder if Blago is found not guilty by a court of law, will he get to keep his job? Or is he toast in the Age of Obama?

Seating Burris is the best thing for the GOP. Burris hasn’t been able to win an election in a number of years. Come 2010, if the GOP has a candidate remotely qualified, then they pick up another US Senate. That’s why the GOP is fighting to have him seated. Looks like Blago really stuck it to Obama.

Last month we were reading about what the GOP needs to do to become successful again. Looks like the GOP will get a lot of help from the Democrats infighting. They are now pushing some things through which hurts debate, the country as a whole, and the Blue Dog Democrats who have really improved their lot in the last few elections. Sorta looks like we have a new clique in congress… LIBERALS GONE WILD.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146274483166511.html

(side note: As some here take offense to my often utilized term “The Liberal Elite,” in good faith and as a new year’s resolution I will try to refrain from using the term “The Liberal Elite.” I think “Limousine Liberals” is a pretty good alternative… don’t you?)