23 Comments

1. 1
   Francine Shacter Says:

   I think it is a sorry commentary on his 22 years of service that Jim Kolbe saw fit to travel extensively and at government expense when he is retiring.

   Posted on December 8th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
2. 2
   exrightwing Says:

   The laziest …most incompetent group of self serving pigs the Nation has ever had to suffer under. Thank God they have been unplugged before they could do any more damage.

   “Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., gaveled the House to a close for the last time about 3:15 a.m.; the Senate limped to a close about 4:40 a.m.

   Republicans dumped an unfinished budget on the Democrats about to take power, with the Senate barely meeting a midnight deadline to pass a stopgap spending bill putting the government on autopilot until Feb. 15.

   The failure to pass budget bills for domestic agencies, said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., amounted to “a blatant admission of abject failure by the most useless Congress in modern times.”

   Posted on December 9th, 2006 at 8:40 am
3. 3
   exrightwing Says:

   Rem3ember this when the rest of these Republican jerks are up for re-election. And screw McCain.

   Posted on December 9th, 2006 at 8:41 am
4. 4
   TimO Says:

   Yea, F McCain!

   Posted on December 9th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
5. 5
   John Says:

   Quoted: “The laziest …most incompetent group of self serving pigs the Nation has ever had to suffer under. Thank God they have been unplugged before they could do any more damage.”

   You know, you liberals all think alike. You think government is there to give you everything you want. It’s a sad shame to say that government is not there but to provide those things that you do not have the opportunity to provide for by yourself. A common currency throughout all 50 states and national defense are two examples of such things that a person can’t provide for themselves. And wouldn’t you know it: “…. to coin money, regulate the value thereof…. to raise and support Armies…. to provide and maintain a Navy” are all enumerated in the Constitution.

   When Democrats take power in January, I would expect no less than total and complete incompetence with respect to Middle Eastern affairs, healthcare issues, immigration policies, Social Security and Medicare policy, and, well, domestic and foreign policy in general.

   You talk about a self-serving, lazy, and incompetent group now, just you wait until you see the 2007-2008 group, with the left-wing people in power!

   Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 4:19 am
6. 6
   DumpMcCain Says:

   Poor John, victim of self denial. Maybe he could name one competent accomplishment of this bunch of self serving lazy
   pigs that is now called the republican party. Actions speak
   louder than words.

   Maybe it was:
   Starting an illegal war on lies and created intelligence followed by an equally illegal occupation of a sovereign nation.

   Sacrificing over 3,000 members of the finest military in the world for their illegal war they are still trying to explain as to why we are there.

   Maybe the destruction of habeas corpus

   Katrina?

   Squandering the national treasury and a spiraling deficit from an inherited surplus budget

   Ignoring real intelligence from a prior administration and allowing 9-11 to happen on their watch

   Protecting slave labor and forced abortion in the Marianas

   Rewarding corporations for moving offshore to avoid tax and giving tax breaks for outsourcing of jobs

   Escalating the selling of America to China
   Increasing the poverty level to the highest percentage in the past 40 years

   Protecting white trash like Paris Hilton from paying estate tax

   Creating a national event to maintain a brain dead person on mechanical life support

   Being unable to account for 9 billion dollars cash in Iraq

   Spending 11 million dollars a minute for an illegal war that America does not have

   Borrowing more money from foreign countries than all of the prior administrations combined

   Creating more scandals in congress than any administration in the past 40 years.

   History of electing buffoons and liars as presidents

   Bashing gays but supporting known pedophiles within their ranks.

   Maybe it was giving millions of dollars to traitorous lying thieves like fallwell, dobson and robertson in the name of religion under a phony title of faith based charity, disgusting.

   Screwing seniors and the ill to protect drug company profits

   Yup it has become the grand ole party of hypocrisy
   And John you are proud of this pile of crap? Your are kidding right?

   Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 5:45 am
7. 7
   shrimplate Says:

   Well written, DumpMcCain, but bound to have little effect on the likes of john. He sounds like one of those “family values” types judging from his rant about how little our government is supposed to serve us.

   Very likely he grew up with a “strict father” household style, with all its make-on-your-own, authoritarian, punishment/reward and such baggage fully internalized by him at probably quite a young age. He’s thus been rendered completely unable to identify with liberal notions such as “government by the people, for the people.” It’s not part of his psychological make-up, and he proclaims this with a bizarre pride.

   Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 8:58 am
8. 8
   shrimplate Says:

   Well written, DumpMcCain, but bound to have little effect on the likes of john. He sounds like one of those “family values” types judging from his rant about how little our government is supposed to serve us.

   Very likely he grew up with a “strict father” household style, with all its make-it-on-your-own, authoritarian, punishment/reward and such baggage fully internalized by him at probably quite a young age. He’s thus been rendered completely unable to identify with liberal notions such as “government by the people, for the people.” It’s not part of his psychological make-up, and he proclaims this with a bizarre pride.

   Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 8:59 am
9. 9
   John Says:

   Let’s see…. where to start:

   Accomplishments of the Republican Party:
   - Starting a war against those people who would kill you and I both in an instant for advocating that which we believe, and which was started based on factual information at that time.

   - Making sure our country remains a place where you and I are both allowed such freedoms as speech and the right to vote. The deaths of 3,000 members of our armed forces are a tragic loss in ensuring that those freedoms stay protected.

   - Reorganizing the structure of the federal government to enable it to do better that which it was designed to do: protect American citizens.

   - Passing sweeping tax cuts that by this year had cut the deficit to $250 billion from the estimated $500 billion projected in 2000.

   - 9/11 was something that every single person on this planet felt in some way, and for you to say that one person or administration “allowed it to happen” is not only false, but foolhardy and you should be ashamed of yourself. If it had happened under Al Gore, the people of America would not be blaming it on a failure to act on his part.

   - Allowing the principles of free trade and economic opportunity for prosperity to be spread throughout the world through the process of globalization.

   - Protecting white trash like John and Theresa Heinz-Kerry from paying estate tax.

   “Creating a national event to maintain a brain dead person on mechanical life support” – If you’re attempting to use 9/11 in this fashion again, I pity you for your unthinkably tempestuous remarks.

   “History of electing buffoons and liars as presidents” – This one’s just funny. You guys almost elected John Kerry and Al Gore as President. Before that you elected William Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson. Talk about buffoons and liars.

   - Making certain that American traditional family values, like heterosexual marriage, are supported, and preventing indecency, homosexual marriage, and other moral fallings-out of our society.

   - Providing for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

   - Helping seniors, with the support of many across the aisle, to afford their healthcare costs and prescription drugs despite their status as non-workers in a country with dwindling SSI monies from the Democrats not allowing SSI accounts to become privatized to allow you and I to save up our own money for when we retire, and not rely on our grandchildren.

   Shrimplate (funny name, by the way): How I grew up should have no bearing on whether or not I am a “family values type.” It would seem like common sense to me, but shouldn’t everyone be “for” family values? Just like everyone, Dem, Rep, Green, Lib, and Communist alike is “for” making sure our kids are well-educated?

   As for government “by the people, for the people,” though nowhere in the Constitution (it’s from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address), it has great bearing on the concept of liberty for America, and it means that the government was created by the demos, upheld by the demos, and serves to provide for the demos that which they do not have the opportunity to provide for themselves. It is neither a “liberal notion” or a “conservative notion” – it is simply a fact.

   Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
10. 10
    Scott Says:

    John said:

    “When Democrats take power in January, I would expect no less than total and complete incompetence with respect to Middle Eastern affairs, healthcare issues, immigration policies, Social Security and Medicare policy, and, well, domestic and foreign policy in general.”

    In other words, you expect the status quo. Cool! Anything better will be improvement, and you’ll be happy!

    I’d start on your second post, but I just don’t have time today for a lengthy exchange of posts. Have fun with those who do, however. I will take time to note your first point,

    “Starting a war against those people who would kill you and I both in an instant for advocating that which we believe, and which was started based on factual information at that time.”

    … is only valid if one overlooks all the evidence in place which showed NO connection between Iraq and terrorists, something the administration was happily willing to turn a blind eye to.

    Oh, and the other reference was to the Terry Schiaco hoopla, not 9/11.

    … and I find myself getting into a post I didn’t intend to make in the first place. Must stop now.

    Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
11. 11
    exrightwing Says:

    Does this make you feel all warm and fuzzy that our government is run by an incompetent idiot?

    Now McCain wants to send more troops. Everyone there volunteered for a paycheck to be a mercenary.

    We are in our forth year in Iraq. More uneducated MTV Dirt bags enter the service now.

    They get Halliburton camps, Halliburton stakes, and Halliburton room service. Time to cost cut and place them on K-rations.

    Lets see what McCain has to say about that?

    Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
12. 12
    Colleen Says:

    Terry Schiavo. A great example of how the Republicans think that government should not intrude in one’s private life, unless, of course, one deviates from their idea of traditional “values” including being: heterosexual (at least in appearance), conservative, patriarchal, mainstream, traditional, anglo, pro-life, (and by pro-life, this also includes supporting saving life at all costs, even if that life is vegetative and would not exist without astronomically costly life supporting mechanisms), and being self supporting (and by golly, if you are poor, you know it’s because it’s your fault and somehow you are deserving of your plight). As long as you conform to “traditional values”, you are worthy and deserving of living in America. Republicans. Protecting SENIORS??? Oh, give me a break. Don’t even get me started on Medicare D……Sheesh. Although I’m a Democrat, and from a practical standpoint disagree with Libertarian philosophy, at least Libertarians recognize that government’s place isn’t to legislate morality. Oh, how I didn’t want to get sucked into this argument either, but alas……

    Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
13. 13
    John Says:

    No connection between Iraq and terrorists, huh? Wasn’t Saddam Hussein a state terrorist? By which I mean a person who used threats of violence and had used in the past chemical weapons to intimidate his citizens into obeying him? Iraq under Hussein not only had connections to terrorism, it’s leader was a terrorist.

    As for the Terri Shiavo comment, I obviously missed it when it was first said. Nonetheless, I don’t believe it’s my place to say whether or not the right decisions were made with respect to that case, since I don’t know a lot about it. However, I do hold the position that everyone deserves to live, whether with machine assistance or not. As for the national “hoopla” – the Dems were involved as much as anyone.

    Posted on December 10th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
14. 14
    DumpMcCain Says:

    You hang in there John, keep posting, it will assist the good people of this site to help you identify your psychosis, there is treatment available. Shrimplate must have hit a nerve, so you know you need help. Great start.

    Your comments reflect rhetoric and ideology, very weak on facts. One can increase their political knowledge base by not only viewing foxed up news. Take the cure and limit the rush limblab drug attiict, the insane car salesman hanity, and the shreaking coulter. Air America is a great learning base for progressive liberal views and ideas.

    Your post acclaims the republicans work for the good of America, well Hitler, Stalin, and Pinochet pushed that lie on their countries also.

    As to Saddam using chemicals, research a little, he bought them from Rumsfeld who was supported by the evil republican regime at the time. Check it out.

    Posted on December 11th, 2006 at 4:59 am
15. 15
    exrightwing Says:

    13. John

    Rush Limbaugh visited Terri Schiavo gravesite and Rush told her to stop faking her vegetative state.

    I love it when Republicans like you post your Frat boy goofy tirade. It just shows the more moderate posters just how bad the Republican party has become.

    Posted on December 11th, 2006 at 8:26 am
16. 16
    Scott Says:

    John,

    “No connection between Iraq and terrorists, huh? Wasn’t Saddam Hussein a state terrorist? By which I mean a person who used threats of violence and had used in the past chemical weapons to intimidate his citizens into obeying him? Iraq under Hussein not only had connections to terrorism, it’s leader was a terrorist.”

    That most certainly does NOT meet the criteria of terrorism. It does
    show Hussein is/was a horrible example of humanity, but that was never really questioned.

    Iraq did NOT support the export of terrorism, and did NOT support al-Qaida (despite attempts to claim otherwise in the run-up to the start of the war).

    Posted on December 11th, 2006 at 8:51 am
17. 17
    John Says:

    Dump: You amuse me. Keep it up, because I can always use a good laugh!

    Exright: Like I said before, I really don’t know a lot about the Shiavo deal, so what anyone said or did on the topic, I’m not arguing about.

    Scott: Why would Hussein in my example not meet the definition of terrorism or terrorist? A terrorist is someone who uses “violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.” That sounds exactly like Saddam’s regime to me.

    Posted on December 11th, 2006 at 10:32 am
18. 18
    Scott Says:

    John,

    A terrrorist applies such things externally, or against the existing governement. Since Hussein represented the existing government (like it or not), he doesn’t qualify.

    Was he a despot? Absolutely. Did he fit the definition of a terrorist? No.

    Posted on December 11th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
19. 19
    exrightwing Says:

    Israel First McCain Pushing Attack on Iran for Israel

    http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=64415

    Neocons in both American and Israel influenced the decision to invade Iraq, without thinking Bush gave up the hunt for the real terrorists in the world, he broke up the global coalition to fight terrorists and went it virtually alone into Iraq where no terrorists existed.

    Posted on December 11th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
20. 20
    John Says:

    Scott, I understand your point, but there is a differentiation between a “terrorist” and a “state terrorist” – more commonly referred to as “state sponsored terrorist.”

    My info comes from several sources, but the following is a good one for an overview and definition of my point: http://www.answers.com/topic/state-terrorism

    I will also summarize from this site:

    “State terrorism is a controversial term which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state. Whether a particular act is described as “terrorism” may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary, or whether the described act is carried out as part of an armed conflict…. State terrorism, where applicable, may be directed toward the population or infrastructure of the state in question or towards the population of other states…. The terrorism may be carried out by the state’s own forces, such as an army, police, state supported militias, or other organisations, where it is more usually called state-sponsored terrorism….

    “The distinction between state and nonstate terror has been criticized as being morally relativist and as distracting from or justifying state terrorism perpetrated by favored states, typically those of wealthy and developed nations (Chomsky and Herman, 1979).The Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón views particular political systems as instances of state terrorism: “State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance.” It is obvious, that virtually any police or military action could be marked as the State Terrorism, according the definition. It depends on Point Of View only. Some acts of state terrorism also qualify as genocide, crimes against humanity or mass murder….”

    “Often, the bodies of victims are secretly disposed, typically in mass graves, leaving no evidence of a crime and increasing the trauma to families and communities. These cases are known as “forced disappearances”, and take place particularly in South America. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances was formed in 1980 to investigate the global phenomenon of unexplained disappearances.”

    This is where I’m coming from. Your definition of a “terrorist” is accurate, but I also use an alternate definition of a “state terrorist” to fit a person who uses acts of terrorism to influence the citizens of his/her country, while he/she is in power in that country.

    Posted on December 11th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
21. 21
    Tim Stringham Says:

    http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

    Please take the time to read a small sample of the quotes listed on the above link before reading on and responding.

    I’m so sick and tired of idiot liberals being so incredibly stupid and one sided that they can’t even take the time to look at their own leaders. You morons should take half a second to read or listen to what people on the left of politics said about the war before it happened, and then compare that to what they are saying now. You leftist idiots are mad at Republicans for starting an alledgedly illegal war, but then your answer is to elect the liberal idiots who cast the same vote.

    Notice, I didn’t even bother to defend Republicans, I’m just interested to see how liberals defend their own leaders when they make the same decisions and judgments as republicans.

    Posted on December 11th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
22. 22
    Scott Says:

    Tim,

    You make a very valid point, and I am disappointed with the many Dem leaders who spoke in favor of the war at the time.

    However, many others (perhaps most notably Howard Dean) were very sceptical about the need for the war. I can’t recall any prominent Republicans who felt that way at the time.

    Posted on December 14th, 2006 at 7:51 am
23. 23
    Tim Stringham Says:

    I can respect the viewpoints of Democrats like Scott, who have the decency to acknowledge reality. At least Howard Dean stayed true to his beliefs, unlike every other Democrat on that list who is now attacking Republicans. If Democrats believe the war was based on lies, why on Earth did you vote for John Kerry over Howard Dean?

    What the hell are Democrats mad about, because they certainly aren’t mad at John Kerry for lobbying to hold Saddam accountable even during Clinton’s administration.

    Posted on December 14th, 2006 at 4:23 pm

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

What is 10 + 5?

Copyright © 2010 Arizona Congress Watch.
Design adapted from this theme.