Democratic Senator Cantell in ethics scandal

[Don Roley]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908...BVJgiGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Take a look at what her spokesperson Micheal Meehan gives as an excuse to understand why I am so cynical about politics. Even if it is true that there is no proof of illeagle activity, what she is openly stating is far from the ideal of doing what is best for America as a whole.

 

[michaeledward]

Ahh, yes. I remember well, when Don Roley voiced his disgust at Senator Stevens when that Alaskan Representative fought for that Bridge to Nowhere. How dare any senator do anything to support his constituents.

Seems to me, there was a war fought over whether the country would be a loose federation of strong states or a looser union of weaker states.

But, what the hell, if we can pick on one Democratic Senator. Rather than the appropriations process. It is so strange how earmarks get into appropriation bills ... unknown, undebated, unseen.

Wasn't there recently a Senate Bill to create a google-like database of all federal contracts and spending? Wasn't that bill killed by an anonymous Senator, using an archaic Senate Rule? Who was that, who did that ... was it Senator Bridge to Nowhere ... why, yes, I believe it was.

Let's take a look at appropriations process.... the earmark programs ... maybe here ...

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006

I wonder how those earmarks may have changes in the last 6 years or so ... you know, under BushCo, and a mostly Repugnant congress.

1992 - 892 Earmark projects - 2.6 Billion Dollars
1998 - 2,143 Earmark projects - 13.2 Billion Dollars
2003 - 9,362 Earmark projects - 22.5 Billion Dollars
2006 - 9.963 Earmark projects - 29 Billion Dollars

None of that matters either, though ... becuase Department of Defense is one big boondoogle of this sort. Military developers throughout the country, utilizing the "Iron Triangle" to send money around the country, liberally, to build weapons the military doesn't need or want; never mind we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.


But, why not just pick on one little Senator - a woman, and a democrat, at that.

 

[FearlessFreep]

"Holy Non-Sequitar, Batman"

 

[Marginal]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908...BVJgiGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Take a look at what her spokesperson Micheal Meehan gives as an excuse to understand why I am so cynical about politics. Even if it is true that there is no proof of illeagle activity, what she is openly stating is far from the ideal of doing what is best for America as a whole.

Pales in comparison to Dick Cheney's ties with Haliburton.

 

[michaeledward]

"Holy Non-Sequitar, Batman"

Surely, one going by the name 'FearlessFreep' can follow those tangents, thus disproving the assertion of a 'non-sqeuitur' (with a 'u'), but, if I need to slow down a bit, for you to catch up, you let me know.

 

[FearlessFreep]

'non-sqeuitur' (with a 'u'),

he he....

 

[crushing]

Let's take a look at appropriations process.... the earmark programs ... maybe here ...

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006

I wonder how those earmarks may have changes in the last 6 years or so ... you know, under BushCo, and a mostly Repugnant congress.

1992 - 892 Earmark projects - 2.6 Billion Dollars
1998 - 2,143 Earmark projects - 13.2 Billion Dollars
2003 - 9,362 Earmark projects - 22.5 Billion Dollars
2006 - 9.963 Earmark projects - 29 Billion Dollars

Actually, it looks very much like the BushCo administration didn't miss a step falling right in line:

Year $ Billion # of Projects
1996 12.5 958
1997 14.5 1,596
1998 13.2 2,143
1999 12 2,839
2000 17.7 4,326
2001 18.5 6,333
BushCo Takes Over:
2002 20.1 8,341
2003 22.5 9,362
2004 22.9 10,656
2005 27.3 13,997
2006 29 9,963

Obviously, this is not a defense of the Repugnant BushCo admin or whatever other silly names we can think up for him and his advisors, but a condemnation of the same for violating the conservative campaign promises of his first term.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Gosh! Demoncrats are slimy politicians too? Say it isnt so daddy, say it isnt so!

:barf:

 

[Don Roley]

But, why not just pick on one little Senator - a woman, and a democrat, at that.

Ah yes, don't deal with the issue and try to portray me as someone who would beat up on a female for whatever reason. Can you possibly more obvious about your agenda?

 

[michaeledward]

Ah yes, don't deal with the issue and try to portray me as someone who would beat up on a female for whatever reason. Can you possibly more obvious about your agenda?

What issue?

Spelling ... it is Senator Cantwell ... with a 'w'.

A senator working to benefit her constituents? Isn't that the program? Is that why members of congress represent different areas of the country?

Appropriations and earmarks within Appropriation Bills?

Doing what's best for the country as a whole? ..... Is that the Senators' jobs? Or do they represent a single constituency in the country. Maybe you want to do away with Congress altogether, and establish a single party dictator, that way, we can be certain that every government action is in line with what is best for the powers of that centralized power.

You see, Don Roley, you did not spell out what issue you wished to discuss in this thread. Which leads to many counters.

So, why don't you try to tell us more clearly ... What issue do you wish to discuss? Then we'll be able to see if this is really something to talk about, or just a cheap shot on a Democratic Senator.

 

[Don Roley]

So, why don't you try to tell us more clearly ... What issue do you wish to discuss? Then we'll be able to see if this is really something to talk about, or just a cheap shot on a Democratic Senator.

At this point I want to talk about how you came in, hijacked a thread and are accusing me of attacking someone because they are a woman!

That is a great insult. I am an equal oppurtunity hater of slime. To say that I am doing something because this person is a woman is vile.

Or do you mean to say that women are so weak and pathetic that we should make them off limits? That is just as vile.

Of course your other accusations, constant sniping and attacks against me are not great- it is just the blatency of you trying to paint me as a woman hater that stands out.

 

[Lisa]

Moderator Note:

Please keep the discussion at a mature and respectful level. Please feel free to use the ignore feature that can be found in each member's profile.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator

 

[michaeledward]

At this point I want to talk about how you came in, hijacked a thread and are accusing me of attacking someone because they are a woman!

That is a great insult. I am an equal oppurtunity hater of slime. To say that I am doing something because this person is a woman is vile.

Or do you mean to say that women are so weak and pathetic that we should make them off limits? That is just as vile.

Of course your other accusations, constant sniping and attacks against me are not great- it is just the blatency of you trying to paint me as a woman hater that stands out.

Please tell me what the topic of the thread is .... I'm not quite sure how I could hijack something that is not clearly defined.

You accuse in the thread title Senator Cantwell of an ethics scandal, but the article you link to says that the Senator helped a lobbyist. Isn't that what lobbyists do ... lobby for the assistance of elected leaders?

You move on to say that the Senator's spokesperson provides a lame excuse for something which you never clearly define 'ethics scandal'.

So, if I am unable to discern your intent on the thread, and read it as a 'typical attack' from you, and answer those attacks, several of those attacks that I am assuming you are making - because you did not make your intent clear to my understanding - it is hijacking the thread.

Please, try again, explain to me ... don't know if anyone is listening to our quarrel any more ... what you wish to discuss?


What about the article are you so bothered about, that you created this thread?

 

[Don Roley]

The matter is now your attacks on me by implying that I am going after the senator because she is a woman. I am not willing to let that slight go. You are trying to duck the issue because your action was dishonorable and you know it. I want a full explination of your reasons and the appropriate actions taken.

 

[michaeledward]

The matter is now your attacks on me by implying that I am going after the senator because she is a woman. I am not willing to let that slight go. You are trying to duck the issue because your action was dishonorable and you know it. I want a full explination of your reasons and the appropriate actions taken.

I am not trying to duck any issue.

What is the issue, Don Roley?

You attacked Senator Cantwell. But, you never explained why.

If you do not like my interpretation of what I think you are attacking - I offered several, in fact, a fellow poster commented on all of the possibilities to which I responded (Holy Non-Sequitur, Batman).
One of my interpretations of your possible attacks is that she is a Democratic Senator .... you are perfectly willing to let that go, be it a slight or not.

What is the issue, Don Roley?

You can of course, let your black dot focus on one of my suppositions consume you. Or you can talk about what you hoped to talk about when starting this thread - provided you can enlighten us to what that is.

Or maybe, that is what you wanted to do when you started this thread. Maybe you wanted to pick a fight with me. I don't know.

What is the issue Don Roley?

That more than six years ago, before Senator Cantwell was a senator; before they lobbyist was a lobbyist, the two entered into a loan agreement. Then when the Senator became Senator Cantwell, but before the lobbyist became a lobbyist, she started working for the benefit of her constiutents - but the loan wasn't repaid. Somewhere along the line, the lobbyist became a lobbyist, the Senator was still a Senatory, and the loan still wasn't repaid. Wait - there's more - then the lobbyist became a client for the companies for which the Senator already had taken actions with, for the benefit of her constituents.

But obviously, that sneaky loan from seven, eight, or more years ago was the direct influence on the Senator's actions toward the legislation that is going to provide clean drinking water to her constituents, restore salmon habitat, and provide local control over those resources.

Is the issue you want to discuss, Don Roley?

You said that the Senator's spokespersons defense is the reason you don't trust any politicians to work for the whole of America. But what does that mean exactly, Don Roley? That locally elected representatives are not able to work for the people that put them in places of power? Did you rail against the redistricting plans of Tom Delay, when he gerrymandered Texas so that those local representatives would be predominately from one political party? Was that for the benefit of the whole of America?

What is the issue here, Don Roley?

You see, without you clearly defining what the issue is ... you know the 'ethics scandal' of which you accuse Senator Cantwell ... I am left to my own interpretations. I offered several - I can see you didn't like my guesses.

You have the opportunity to enlightment not just me, but others who read this board.

What is the issue, Don Roley?

 

[Don Roley]

I am not trying to duck any issue.

What is the issue, Don Roley?

The issue is your attempt to paint me as a person who would attack someone because they are a woman. It is a personal attack and I do not take it lightly. I want you to deal with that and not try to sweep it under the rug. I do not take off hand attacks on my honor like that very well.

 

[michaeledward]

The issue is your attempt to paint me as a person who would attack someone because they are a woman. It is a personal attack and I do not take it lightly. I want you to deal with that and not try to sweep it under the rug. I do not take off hand attacks on my honor like that very well.

I understand.

You started this thread in an attempt to pick a fight with me.

I apologize for raising to the bait. I should have known better.

 

[michaeledward]

This just in from the Washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901079.html

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

Seemed to work so far, eh?

 

[Carol]

Equal opportunity I say.

A woman deserves just as much of a chance as a mand does to try her hand at being a scandal-tinged, ethically questionable politician.

 

[michaeledward]

Equal opportunity I say.

A woman deserves just as much of a chance as a mand does to try her hand at being a scandal-tinged, ethically questionable politician.

Is it a scandal, or is it just 'swift-boating'?

You know, Swift Boat Veterans for Local Ownership of Dam Power Generation, a long standing activist community in the PacWest, always looking out for what's best for man and fish.