THIS is what's wrong with Republicans:

[Tock]

They speak against earmarks, then they sponsor 'em. What's up with that?
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.
===========================

http://sessions.house.gov/index.cfm?...9-d7ff841f5322
Appropriations

Earmarks have become a symbol of broken Washington to the American people. In these tough economic times, American families and small businesses are tightening their fiscal belts, and they have every right to expect Washington to do the same. Unfortunately, this Congress has already proven its addiction to record-breaking, pork-barrel spending.
Consequently, Congressman Sessions is supporting a temporary moratorium on earmarks. While some earmarks serve valuable purposes, such as infrastructure and research projects, wasteful earmarks have unfortunately polluted the earmark process. The need for comprehensive earmark reform is clear.
(there's more)
--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/25599
Exclusive: Earmark critic steered cash to blimp research

Rep. Pete Sessions — the chief of the Republicans’ campaign arm in the House — says on his website that earmarks have become “a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.”
Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps.
What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.
Sessions spokeswoman Emily Davis defends the airship project as a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessions’s Dallas-area district.
But the company that received the earmarked funds, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in the suburbs of Chicago, with another office in San Antonio — nearly 300 miles from Dallas. And while Sessions used a Dallas address for the company when he submitted his earmark request to the House Appropriations Committee last year, one of the two men who control the company says that address is merely the home of one of his close friends.
Jim G. Ferguson IV — the younger half of the father-son team behind Jim G. Ferguson & Associates — told POLITICO that he and his father are trying to build an airship with a “high fineness ratio” that can be used in both military and civilian applications.
Fineness ratio is the technical term for the relationship between an airship’s length and its diameter; the higher the fineness ratio, the longer and more slender the airship is. A blimp with a very high fineness ratio could fly faster and be able to stay aloft longer — the holy grail for airship designers during the past century.
Yet Ferguson acknowledged that neither he nor his father has a background in the defense or aviation industries, nor any engineering or research expertise.
A search of publicly available records shows no history of the Fergusons ever being involved with the airship industry other than their attendance at a February 2005 Pentagon conference on the subject.
Jim G. Ferguson IV said in an interview that he and his father “were business people” and had acquired the patents for building an advanced airship prototype. He said that the two men are playing a supervisory role in the project and “have obtained world-class experts to work for us.”
According to a statement that Sessions included in the Congressional Record last September, slightly more than half of the $1.6 million earmark was to go toward research and engineering costs. The remainder was for overhead and administrative costs.
(there's more . . . )

[Tock]

Adrian Plesha

Quite the accomplished criminal, and Congressman Session's aide and Republican fraudster:


http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040422murs.html
FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DECEIVE VOTERS RESULTS
IN $84,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIESWASHINGTON -- The FEC has entered into conciliation agreements with Adrian Plesha and Charles Ball for Congress resulting from their fraudulent misrepresentation of their opponent’s party and a Congressman from a neighboring district in mailings and phone calls during the 1998 campaign. The Commission found probable cause to believe that Plesha and the committee had knowingly and willfully violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). Adrian Plesha will pay a $60,000 civil penalty and Charles Ball for Congress will pay $24,000. Shortly before the 1998 general election, Ball for Congress, acting through its campaign manager Adrian Plesha, covertly arranged and financed the dissemination of approximately 40,000 letters and 10,000 phone calls that urged registered Democrats not to vote for Representative Ellen Tauscher. The letters and phone calls came from the "East Bay Democratic Committee," a fictitious organization created by Adrian Plesha and Ball for Congress. The letters contained a false address and falsely used neighboring Democratic Congressman George Miller's name as the signatory. Plesha knowingly made false statements to the FEC, denying involvement in or knowledge of this scheme when in fact he had created, authorized and distributed the fabricated letters and calls. To avoid being identified as the true sponsor of the communications, Ball for Congress and Adrian Plesha omitted the required disclaimers, created phony invoices, used stamps rather than the committee’s postal meter and asked vendors to hide any links between the communications and Ball for Congress.
The Act prohibits Federal candidates or their agents from fraudulently misrepresenting any committee under their control as speaking or writing on behalf of any other candidate or political party on a matter that is damaging to that other candidate or party. Additionally, the law requires any person who expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate through a mass mailing to include a disclaimer stating who paid for and authorized the mailing.
The FEC also referred Mr. Plesha to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Mr. Plesha pled guilty to making false statements to the FEC and was sentenced to three years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 160 hours of community service.


=======================

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/33388/print
Published on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (http://www.citizensforethics.org)
CREW FILES DOJ COMPLAINT AGAINST TEXAS REP. PETE SESSIONS



19 Apr 2006 // Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Department of Justice (DOJ) complaint against Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) for official actions he may have taken on behalf of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as possible bribes he may have accepted from a San Francisco defense technology company. The complaint asks for the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into Rep. Sessions.
CREW’s complaint alleges that Rep. Sessions co-signed two letters, one to former Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001 and another to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2002, which benefitted Mr. Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta. One month after his 2002 letter was sent, Rep. Sessions’ political action committee, PETE PAC, received $3,500 from the Louisiana Coushatta and another $3,500 from other tribes with casinos. Within 18 months, PETE PAC received $20,500 from tribes associated with Abramoff.
Rep. Sessions also traveled to Malaysia on an Abramoff-arranged trip with indicted public relations executive Michael Scanlon, two lobbyists from Abramoff’s firm Greenberg Traurig, one of which, Tony Rudy has been indicted, and two other Members of Congress, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). Prior to the trip, Rep. Sessions had shown no public interest in Malaysia, but four months after the trip, Rep. Sessions became an advocate for Malaysia by forming the Malaysia Trade, Security and Economic Cooperation in the House with trip-mate Rep. Meeks.
Additionally, Rep. Sessions promoted the interests of Promia, a firm based in San Francisco that hired Session’s former communications director, Adrian Plesha, as vice president and director of its Washington office. Mr. Plesha pleaded guilty to felony charges related to FEC offences shortly after he began working for Promia.
Promia was able to garner a nearly $800,000 Navy research and development contract in May, 2000 and Rep. Sessions, along with Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), publicly worked to get an additional $8 million for Promia through a Department of Defense grant.
In October 2000, the same month that Promia received $2 million from Trautman Wasserman & Co., a New York venture capital firm, Rep. Sessions received the maximum allowed — $1,000 each, from eight Promia executives for his re-election campaign. In 2002, Promia gave $30,000 to PETE PAC. In total Promia and its executives have contributed nearly $55,000 to Rep. Sessions since 2000 – by far the largest contribution Promia has made to any Member of Congress.

==========

[Tock]

http://www.burntorangereport.com/dia...riminal-record

TX-32: Pete Sessions' $1.6M Taxpayer Gift to Former Aide with Criminal Record


by: Matt Glazer

Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:07 PM CDT


Pete Session has some serious explaining to do.
According to a Politico and Washington Monthly article, Session earmarked $1.6 million to a company he may or may not have questionable ties to.

[Sessions] steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.

Sessions has referred to earmarks in the past with unquestioning and unequivocal opposition. Saying earmarks are "a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people."
Of course, Pete Sessions staff member and spokeswoman Emily Davis defended the project before looking at a map. According to Politico, Davis said the airship project is a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessions's Dallas-area district.
As mentioned above, the company is based in Illinois with a branch office in San Antonio.
Washington Monthly sums up the bizarre situation:

While lawmakers routinely support earmarks for their home district and/or state, this particular measure has nothing to do with Sessions' Dallas-area district. The company, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in a Chicago suburb. It has an office in Texas, but it's 300 miles from Sessions' district.
What's more, when Sessions submitted the earmark, he used a Dallas address for the company, but it was actually the address of a friend of one of the company's executives. It looks a little suspicious. The leaders of Jim G. Ferguson & Associates admit they have no background in aviation or defense, and no expertise in engineering or research. It's why it seems odd that Sessions would direct $1.6 million to the company, most of which would go towards research and engineering on a dirigible project.

We use words like hypocrisy on this site a lot to sum up the Republican Party in Texas, but this extends well beyond a complex idea like hypocrisy. This seems, at the very worst, corrupt and at the very best, unethical. Sessions is the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman (NRCC). He is in charge of both representing and electing Republicans to Congress.

[thegodfather]

“[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution,” President Obama said in a statement released today.

The Democrats are much better. Just today the Democratic Congress launched in inquiry into the many abuses that happened under the Republican Bush regime, and Obama supported this move, he wants to bring the war criminals to justice. Actually, I just made all that up, the reality is that the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi(who wouldn't allow an impeachment to proceed on George Bush), and Barack Obama have no interest in upholding the rule of law in the United States and putting people on trial for egregious crimes which hurt thousands of people and severely damaged the integrity of the United States. Obama seems to be of the opinion that these people who committed these acts were "only following orders," well we didn't let the criminals at Nuremburg off that easily, but I suppose its 'different' when we're talking about Americans. It's always different for us. Do as we say and not as we do. Obama and the majority of the Democrats are empty suits, a whole lot of talk, and not a lot of action. So much for your change.

[amcon]

didnt read much here... seems pretty straight forward... dems are leading this

[SMCengineer]

So, by analyizing the actions of one individual you come up with a conclusion based on an entire party? Further, how innocent do you think many democrats are when it comes to hypocrisy?

[Tock]

Hypocrisy. Huh.

It's been the Republicans who have bleated bleated bleated that they are the party of fiscal responsibility, while Democrats were the party of tax and spend

You have undoubtedly noticed that the Party of George Bush had so mismanaged the economy over his 8 years in office that the US had descended into massive deficit spending, that borrowing from China was at a record high, that the national debt was at a stupefying record high, and trillion-dollar bailouts of underregulated banking and insurance companies were necessary to prevent the planet from schlepping into a massive world-wide depression!

Yep, the country was a whole lot better off under the policies of the Clinton administration, than under the neo-conservative war-mongering anti-civil rights policies of the Bushies.

But, the Republicans still whine about "those tax and spend liberals." They had their opportunity to prove their mettle, and they drove the US into the biggest recession since World War 2.

----

Hypocrisy. Huh.

For years and years the Republicans beat Democrats senseless with Bibles and their claims that they were the "party of family values."

Well, the Republican Senator from Idaho was caught playing "footsie" with a cop in an airport restroom. The Republican Senator from Louisiana was caught patronizing hookers in Washington DC. The anti-gay Republican leader of Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the US was caught paying a male hooker for sex--and drugs!
Ordinarily, that wouldn't merit a second look from my prying eyes, except that all three of those Republicans (and there are plenty plenty plenty more, I assure you) claimed to be morally superior than heathen Democrats, and all three profited by deceiving the general public. That, in my book, makes them hypocrites.


Sure, some Democrats do the same thing, and some Republicans are honest. I grumble about them when their hypocrisy is uncovered.

But no, I did not "come up with a conclusion" . . . "by analyzing the actions of one individual." I've been watching both Republicans and Democrats for years and years. Lots of 'em are crooks, but there are lots more hypocrites in the Republican party.




--

So, by analyizing the actions of one individual you come up with a conclusion based on an entire party? Further, how innocent do you think many democrats are when it comes to hypocrisy?

[Tock]

all three of those Republicans (and there are plenty plenty plenty more, I assure you) claimed to be morally superior than heathen Democrats, and all three profited by deceiving the general public. That, in my book, makes them hypocrites.

Speak of the Devil; I signed off of here and went to check National News, and here's another story of Republican Hypocrisy. Not that I'm surprised; there's been so many of them over the past 10 or 20 years. And there will probably be more tomorrow.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/...enator_scandal
Tenn. senator has affair with intern, resigns

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The Tennessee state senator said he was opposed to sex outside marriage, but his private life told a different story: He was having an affair with his 22-year-old intern.
When an extortion plot exposed married Republican Sen. Paul Stanley's illicit relationship, he said he would be "clearing up" misimpressions later. He's now clearing out his office, the latest politician caught in a sex scandal, this one made worse by not coming clean.

"If you can't explain what you've done to your constituents in 30 seconds or less in a way they would accept, then don't do it," said Bruce Oppenheimer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University. "It's amazing how many elected officials violate that very important conventional wisdom."

As news of the affair broke last month, the 47-year-old Stanley dodged reporters and issued a statement calling himself a victim. The suburban Memphis lawmaker, a married father of two who taught Sunday school, said he wanted to set the record straight. But, he insisted, prosecutors had told him not to talk.

The details that emerged, however, did nothing to vindicate him. Court documents showed he had admitted the affair to investigators and acknowledged taking explicit photos of intern McKensie Morrison in his Nashville apartment. Prosecutors issued a statement saying he was not restricted from discussing the case. After a week of mounting pressure, he reluctantly resigned.

Even as he quit, he tried to blame Morrison, suggesting in a radio interview that the intern might face charges in the extortion case.

Her boyfriend, Joel Watts, is the only person charged in the matter, accused of trying to extort $10,000 from Stanley in April. Authorities have said they do not plan to file more charges.

Investigators say Watts demanded the money in exchange for not selling Stanley's explicit photos of Morrison to the media. Morrison and Watts have said Stanley was the first to offer to pay.

Stanley kept constituents and colleagues — even the Republican speaker of the Senate — in the dark until the first court hearing in the case on July 20.

Tennessee Democratic operative Mark Brown, who blasted Republicans' handling of the incident on his blog, said Stanley's biggest mistake was appearing dishonest.

"First and foremost, tell the truth," he said. "Crisis management does not mean that you alter facts. Tell the truth, and then shut up."

Moments after submitting his resignation letter, Stanley went on a talk radio show in Memphis to say that his actions did not shake his moral ideals.

In nearly a decade in the Legislature, he repeatedly cited his belief in abstinence outside marriage as he opposed gay marriage, adoption by gay couples and family planning funding for Planned Parenthood.
"Whatever I stood for and advocated, I still believe to be true," he said last week. "And just because I fell far short of what God's standard was for me and my wife it doesn't mean that that standard is reduced in the least bit."

Voters were outraged, posting hundreds of comments on newspaper Web sites and writing letters to the editor.
"He wants others to stay out of his business while he jumps blindly into theirs," Dot Truitt Walk of Memphis said in a letter to The Commercial Appeal. "All of those sanctimonious hypocrites should remember this."
Though Stanley's resignation is unhelpful to the GOP, it is not expected to affect his district's solid Republican voting pattern. The GOP already controls the state Senate, though the governor is a Democrat. A special election will be held to fill Stanley's seat.

Oppenheimer said the timing of the scandal may actually be better for Tennessee Republicans than if the affair had surfaced closer to the election.

"The Republicans are far better off that this happened in July 2009 than if it were July 2010," he said.
Some Tennessee Republicans even made light of the situation. State Rep. Stacey Campfield of Knoxville wrote on his blog that another lawmaker told him the Stanley affair was "just more proof, Republicans are clearly irresistible to females."

Other Republicans across the country have recently been caught in extramarital affairs, among them U.S. Sens. John Ensign of Nevada and David Vitter of Louisiana. Then there's South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who on his return from a secret visit to his mistress in Argentina confessed his affair at a tearful, rambling press conference.

But Tom Ingram, a longtime Republican consultant in Tennessee, said all public officials risk the same scorn if they advocate one set of standards while acting under others. "Every public official espouses morality, just like every preacher does," Ingram said. "And the higher standards you set for yourself and others, if you violate those along the way, you're going to pay a higher price because you got caught in your own web."

[MuscleScience]

bla bla bla, damn republicans damn democrats. No no no, Damn all the self serving politicians. Its sheepish to blame one party or the other as being dirty or hypocritical. Good god people wake the **** up!!!

[Tock]

bla bla bla, damn republicans damn democrats. No no no, Damn all the self serving politicians. Its sheepish to blame one party or the other as being dirty or hypocritical. Good god people wake the **** up!!!

True.

But at least the Democrats have the good sense to mind their own business when it comes to sex and religion.

[Iron_Pig]

WTF show me an asshat politician that is worth a bag of shit. They ride a moral high horse and then get caught doing shit they should not be doing.

[Iron_Pig]

True.

But at least the Democrats have the good sense to mind their own business when it comes to sex and religion.

Because they are kissing that illegal immigrant ass for votes and spending my kids future away.

[Tock]

Because they are kissing that illegal immigrant ass for votes and spending my kids future away.

Nevertheless, it is true that Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republicans granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens back in the 1980's, and the gov't was supposed to stop the inflow after that, but it didn't. Reagan Republicans let them continue to sneak across and stay up until 1992, and the Clinton Democrats did the same thing. In 2000, the Bush Republicans kept letting them come across, and made a few token efforts to send a few back, and now the gov't is broke, and can't afford to pay for holding centers and border guards. So things won't change much.
Point is, both the Republicans AND the Democrats suck on this issue.

And as far as spending your kid's future away, that's primarily the unhappy effect of computers and international communications.
Almost everyone in the US is going to have to compete with lower-priced foreigners for US labor. If I want to sell packages of XYZ goo in my shop, if it's cheaper to have it made in China or Andorra or Malaysia, that's what I'm gonna do because MY competitor across the street is gonna do the same thing, and customers aren't gonna buy XYZ goo from me for $8 if they can walk across the street and buy it for $4.
Semiconductor manufacturers and software people are gonna do the same thing. Nobody in the USA is going to pay $2000 for an American-made 36" LCD if they can get a Sony for $899.
So jobs are going overseas, buds. And jobs will keep going over there until they (and their companies) make as much per hour as Americans do. That might mean that their wages will go up, or that ours will go down, or more probably a combination of both.

So prepare for a US decline in living standards. As long as there are lots of computers and international communications, that's the way it's gonna be. Not the responsibility of either political party, just the way a free an open economic system works.

[Tigershark]

There was way too much there to read. Where the Republicans go wrong is by not carrying through on thier promises. Bush ruined the Republican party and the Dems are not doing much better. Obama was elected because he lactates hope from his nipples and this is what Americans needed to hear at the time.

[Iron_Pig]

Nevertheless, it is true that Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republicans granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens back in the 1980's, and the gov't was supposed to stop the inflow after that, but it didn't. Reagan Republicans let them continue to sneak across and stay up until 1992, and the Clinton Democrats did the same thing. In 2000, the Bush Republicans kept letting them come across, and made a few token efforts to send a few back, and now the gov't is broke, and can't afford to pay for holding centers and border guards. So things won't change much.
Point is, both the Republicans AND the Democrats suck on this issue.

And as far as spending your kid's future away, that's primarily the unhappy effect of computers and international communications.
Almost everyone in the US is going to have to compete with lower-priced foreigners for US labor. If I want to sell packages of XYZ goo in my shop, if it's cheaper to have it made in China or Andorra or Malaysia, that's what I'm gonna do because MY competitor across the street is gonna do the same thing, and customers aren't gonna buy XYZ goo from me for $8 if they can walk across the street and buy it for $4.
Semiconductor manufacturers and software people are gonna do the same thing. Nobody in the USA is going to pay $2000 for an American-made 36" LCD if they can get a Sony for $899.
So jobs are going overseas, buds. And jobs will keep going over there until they (and their companies) make as much per hour as Americans do. That might mean that their wages will go up, or that ours will go down, or more probably a combination of both.

So prepare for a US decline in living standards. As long as there are lots of computers and international communications, that's the way it's gonna be. Not the responsibility of either political party, just the way a free an open economic system works.

You hit the nail on the head on that Bro

[SMCengineer]

Hypocrisy. Huh.

It's been the Republicans who have bleated bleated bleated that they are the party of fiscal responsibility, while Democrats were the party of tax and spend

You have undoubtedly noticed that the Party of George Bush had so mismanaged the economy over his 8 years in office that the US had descended into massive deficit spending, that borrowing from China was at a record high, that the national debt was at a stupefying record high, and trillion-dollar bailouts of underregulated banking and insurance companies were necessary to prevent the planet from schlepping into a massive world-wide depression!

Yep, the country was a whole lot better off under the policies of the Clinton administration, than under the neo-conservative war-mongering anti-civil rights policies of the Bushies.

But, the Republicans still whine about "those tax and spend liberals." They had their opportunity to prove their mettle, and they drove the US into the biggest recession since World War 2.

----

Hypocrisy. Huh.

For years and years the Republicans beat Democrats senseless with Bibles and their claims that they were the "party of family values."

Well, the Republican Senator from Idaho was caught playing "footsie" with a cop in an airport restroom. The Republican Senator from Louisiana was caught patronizing hookers in Washington DC. The anti-gay Republican leader of Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the US was caught paying a male hooker for sex--and drugs!
Ordinarily, that wouldn't merit a second look from my prying eyes, except that all three of those Republicans (and there are plenty plenty plenty more, I assure you) claimed to be morally superior than heathen Democrats, and all three profited by deceiving the general public. That, in my book, makes them hypocrites.


Sure, some Democrats do the same thing, and some Republicans are honest. I grumble about them when their hypocrisy is uncovered.

But no, I did not "come up with a conclusion" . . . "by analyzing the actions of one individual." I've been watching both Republicans and Democrats for years and years. Lots of 'em are crooks, but there are lots more hypocrites in the Republican party.




--

You don't have to prove to me that many Republicans are hypocrites, I'll willingly and knowingly conceed that point. But to say that "This is what's wrong with Republicans" is simply wrong and ignoring the bigger picture that it's not a party issue. Nor is it appropriate to say "the republicans have more hypocrites," as though being a little less hypocritical makes one party morally better off than the other. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and, frankly, politicians specialize in it, don't focus on one party in particular as though it's a polarizing issue. Stop with the 'one side is better than the other' bs. They're both shit.

[Tock]

Stop with the 'one side is better than the other' bs. They're both shit.

One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable).

These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing.

Democrats don't do that to me.
Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert?

FTS . . .

As my little brother says, "Both Republicans and Democrats are crooks, but at least the Democrats will leave a little bit on your plate after they rob ya blind."

to Republican politicians

[Iron_Pig]

To all politicians they serve their own agenda not the people's. They will sell you a bill of good's and never deliver because they act like little kid's on the play ground.

[SMCengineer]

One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable).

These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing.

Democrats don't do that to me.
Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert?

'Don't ask don't tell' was enacted by Clinton.

[Kratos]

“[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution,” President Obama said in a statement released today.

The Democrats are much better. Just today the Democratic Congress launched in inquiry into the many abuses that happened under the Republican Bush regime, and Obama supported this move, he wants to bring the war criminals to justice. Actually, I just made all that up, the reality is that the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi(who wouldn't allow an impeachment to proceed on George Bush), and Barack Obama have no interest in upholding the rule of law in the United States and putting people on trial for egregious crimes which hurt thousands of people and severely damaged the integrity of the United States. Obama seems to be of the opinion that these people who committed these acts were "only following orders," well we didn't let the criminals at Nuremburg off that easily, but I suppose its 'different' when we're talking about Americans. It's always different for us. Do as we say and not as we do. Obama and the majority of the Democrats are empty suits, a whole lot of talk, and not a lot of action. So much for your change.

This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.

These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.

[Kratos]

Holy cow Tock, what a stupid thread. I thought you were above this.

[Iron_Pig]

This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.

These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.

We are not brainwashed and we do question This is what separates us from other military's I was an Officer in the Army and I questioned everything we did these are my Boy's my Family and I will be Damned to hell if I sent they on some fubar mission.

[gigabitbucket]

There was way too much there to read. Where the Republicans go wrong is by not carrying through on thier promises. Bush ruined the Republican party and the Dems are not doing much better. Obama was elected because he lactates hope from his nipples and this is what Americans needed to hear at the time.

So true!

[ScotchGuard]

DEMs better than REPs? How about Ford better than Chevy? It doesn't matter who's in office. DEMs spent $1 TRILLION DOLLARS! to bailout banks. That's $4,000 that every man woman and child has to pay back. Where does that money come from? We borrow it. China is the BIGGEST financier of our debt. So by Obama borrowing and spending $1 T to bail out banks that was doing just what the Clinton administration told them to do. A $1 T debt quiets all the REPs bleating. How are we EVER going to pay that back? We've sold the future of our children and grand children.

[TITANIUM]

This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.

These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.

I respect the Godfather as well as Kratos. You have my respect.The difference between the two parties is a very fine line in the sand. At this point, they are all dirty, and everyone knows it.So stop trying to point fingers at each other.If you want to blame a particular party, you need not to look any farther than your bathroom mirror. We the people, let this diluted goverment get out of control.

Remember, we the people should not fear the goverment, the goverment should fear the people!!!

[Iron_Pig]

I respect the Godfather as well as Kratos. You have my respect.The difference between the two parties is a very fine line in the sand. At this point, they are all dirty, and everyone knows it.So stop trying to point fingers at each other.If you want to blame a particular party, you need not to look any farther than your bathroom mirror. We the people, let this diluted goverment get out of control.

Remember, we the people should not fear the goverment, the goverment should fear the people!!!

[binder]

haha, republicans? try all politicians. hell, look at the current administration. Do you think the first lady needs all this staff?

Recession, Depression, What, Michelle Worry?
July 7, 2009
Dr. Paul L. Williams
"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, " Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force One to Europe.
Wonder how much they cost?

[Iron_Pig]

Where is her personnel ass wiper ?? I'm glad to know my tax dollars are not being wasted on

[TITANIUM]

Where is her personnel ass wiper ?? I'm glad to know my tax dollars are not being wasted on

I'm sure it's just been omitted accidentally.They have maybe moved up to an auto ass wiper? But then again, it would cost less money, so there is probably a personal ass wiper!!LOL

[BgMc31]

That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..

No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.

I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.

[Iron_Pig]

I'm sure it's just been omitted accidentally.They have maybe moved up to an auto ass wiper? But then again, it would cost less money, so there is probably a personal ass wiper!!LOL

I smell Revaluation

[Iron_Pig]

That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..

No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.

I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.

They are all dirty every DAMN one of them They all need to be lined up and shot.

[spywizard]

would you rather be a bigot?? or a hypocrite??

[Mooseman33]

That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..

No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.

I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.

not true, read the bottom of the OP post where it list the amount of staffers the other first ladies had....nothing even close to michele obama...

[Tock]

'Don't ask don't tell' was enacted by Clinton.

Clinton originally wanted to integrate the armed forces, but DADT was the best compromise he could get. It wasn't much of an improvement, but it was some.
It used to be if the military suspected you were gay, they'd start an investigation. They'd watch you, read your mail, ask a lot of people a lot of prying questions. Their investigations were basically witch-hunts. One person would name another, and they'd grill that person and then he'd name a few more, and they wouldn't quit until they decided they couldn't lose any more people, or until they started getting into generals & other high-level people.

Almost every other NATO military is integrated, there's no reason why the US can't be as well.

[lostcause]

Clinton originally wanted to integrate the armed forces, but DADT was the best compromise he could get. It wasn't much of an improvement, but it was some.
It used to be if the military suspected you were gay, they'd start an investigation. They'd watch you, read your mail, ask a lot of people a lot of prying questions. Their investigations were basically witch-hunts. One person would name another, and they'd grill that person and then he'd name a few more, and they wouldn't quit until they decided they couldn't lose any more people, or until they started getting into generals & other high-level people.

Almost every other NATO military is integrated, there's no reason why the US can't be as well.

i dont see where they help the military, everyone knows gays cant fight.

[Tock]

i dont see where they help the military, everyone knows gays cant fight.

Ya, it wouldn't be any good to have a military full of people like this guy:


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/16/us...jects/A/Armies

MILITARY DEMOTES A GAY SERGEANT

Published: Sunday, May 16, 1993


A highly decorated sergeant who publicly acknowledged his homosexuality was demoted to specialist four just three days after local military officials gave preliminary approval for his honorable discharge.

Army officials said the sergeant, Jose Zuniga, who was the Sixth Army's 1992 Soldier of the Year, was demoted on Thursday because he wore a medal he had not yet been awarded. The decision, by Lieut. Col. Wayne C. Agness, a battalion commander, came after a two-hour hearing at the Presidio, where Sergeant Zuniga is stationed.

Sergeant Zuniga, 24, wore a Meritorious Service medal at the Washington reception where he declared his homosexuality nearly three weeks ago, said a Presidio spokesman, Lieut. Col. Steven Fredericks.

The reception was held the day before the gay march and rally at the Capitol. One of the main issues publicized by the march was the military's ban on homosexuals.

'We Have Integrity'

Officials at the Presidio noticed the medal on Sergeant Zuniga's uniform when they saw televised reports of his announcement, Colonel Fredericks said. He said that Sergeant Zuniga had been recommended to receive the commendation but that the award had not been formally approved.

"The one thing we have in the Army is integrity," Colonel Fredericks said. "What we wear on our uniform is very important because it tells us who we are and where we've been. When you misrepresent yourself, we take that very seriously."

Sergeant Zuniga said Thursday he was sure the award had been approved. He said he called the military personnel office at the Presidio, where somebody told him the commendation had been posted in his record. So he bought himself a ribbon and pinned it on with his others.

Now, he said, people working in the personnel office are signing statements saying that conversation never occurred.

Colonel Fredericks said the medal had not been posted in Sergeant Zuniga's record.

'Doesn't Make Sense'

Sergeant Zuniga said: "I came out because I didn't want to live a lie. It doesn't make sense for me to lie about something as basic as one ribbon. I have five Army Commendation Medals. Why would I add one more and put myself through this horror?

"I was devastated when I heard the punishment. The most important thing to take from a soldier is his rank. I love the Army."

The sergeant said he hoped that the demotion was not the result of "the reason that is resonating my mind: that the Army would like to see me leave with a bloody nose."

While Sergeant Zuniga's honorable discharge has been approved by military officers at the Presidio, it will not be official until it passes through all levels of the military. Until then, the Army can take any action it deems appropriate against him.

Sergeant Zuniga's lawyer, James Kennedy, said the incident "was at worst a naive mistake." He said Sergeant Zuniga did not deserve anything more than an oral reprimand.

Colonel Fredericks said the action had nothing to do with Sergeant Zuniga's homosexuality. "It was dealt with in an appropriate manner," Colonel Fredericks said. "It would have happened if he was gay or not. Anybody who links those two together does not understand anything about the military."

Photo: Sgt. Jose Zuniga (Jose R. Lopez/The New York Times)

[Tock]

i dont see where they help the military, everyone knows gays cant fight.

And of course, this makes perfectly good policy:

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt...fall_continues
Military Fires Three More Gay Arabic Linguists as Shortfall Continues


Iraq Combat Units Losing Their Translators from Frontlines Date: May 23, 2007

SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 23 2007 -
The Associated Press disclosed today that more Arabic linguists have been fired by the military under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that requires separation when a commander learns a service member is gay or lesbian. The linguists were investigated after military officials listened in on conversations conducted on a high-level government computer system which allows intelligence personnel to communicate with troops on the frontlines.
One linguist was serving in Iraq with a Marine combat unit when he was discharged. A military source reported that he was known to be gay but was allowed to serve and was only formally investigated after an Inspector General audit obtained language from the computer chat rooms that apparently suggested he might be gay. Enlisted with the Navy, he was serving with the Marines in the "individual augmentation" program, which allows the military to pull talent from whatever branch they need to, in order to fill shortfalls such as that of the highly trained Arabic linguists. Under "don't ask, don't tell," the military has fired at least fifty-eight Arabic linguists.

Stephen Benjamin, who agreed to talk to researchers at the Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was discharged from the Army this March from Ft. Gordon, Georgia. Benjamin, 23, attended the Defense Language Institute, the military's premiere training school for foreign linguists. Graduating in the top ten percent of his class, he scored a 3.3 on his Defense Language Proficiency Test, well above average. He then became a Cryptologic interpreter, responsible for collecting and analyzing signals and assigned targets to support combatant commanders and other tactical units. Arabic interpreters work with intelligence agencies to translate target cables from stateside and foreign military bases as well as providing critical translation for combat and logistics units on the frontlines. Benjamin was first introduced to Palm Center researchers by the leaders of the Call-to-Duty Tour (www.calltodutytour.org).

In October 2006, the Army Inspector General conducted an audit of a government communications system and investigated seventy service members for abusing the system. Benjamin said he was called in for questioning, and was asked about a comment he made in which he said, "That was so gay -- the good gay, not the bad one." Out of the seventy people, a small number, including Benjamin, were eventually investigated for violations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Although he is not sure which comments prompted the investigation that led to his discharge, he said he had passingly referred to social plans that would have revealed he is gay. He said that some of the worst violations of the government computer system involved people having cyber sex on the system, but those people retained their jobs.
Benjamin was aware of the risk of being monitored, but assumed the military would be focused on other issues. "The risk was always there," he said, but in some cases, this system "was our only means of communicating," especially for those stationed in Iraq.
Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, who is writing a book on "don't ask, don't tell," said the loss of people like Benjamin highlights the hidden costs of the current gay exclusion policy. "The military often suggests that it fires people only when they make 'statements,' as though they are willful and flagrant violations of the law," he said. "This is a facile misunderstanding of military life. The reality is that surviving combat, working efficiently, and bonding with peers are all dependent on this human element of military life, where people talk about their lives with one another. It's hard to see how cybersex on a government communications network is not considered a career-ending offense while mentioning that you had a date last week is such a large threat to unit cohesion that the individual must be fired."
Benjamin said he was out to many of this peers, and "out entirely" in his office. In nearly every case, no one cared that he was gay, and those who did care did nothing about it. "The only harm to unit cohesion that was caused was because I was leaving," he said. "That's where the real harm is, when they pull valuable members out of a team."
During his investigation, Benjamin was given the chance to rebut the charge that he was gay. His Navy supervisor and a civilian supervisor suggested he write a statement insisting he was not gay, but lawyers at the Service Members Legal Defense Network advised him that if he lied and was later found to be gay, he could face a less-than-honorable discharge and even fraud charges for writing false statements.
His JAG officer told him the gay exclusion policy is "politically unpopular," and that military attorneys don't like enforcing the policy, an assertion reinforced when his commanding officers told him they were sorry they had to lose him. His Captain's evaluation read, in part: "EXCEPTIONAL LEADER. Extremely focused on mission accomplishment. Dedicated to his personal development and that of his sailors. takes Pride in his work and promotes professionalism in his subordinates."
When he was discharged, Benjamin was preparing to re-enlist for another six years. He volunteered to deploy, hoping to serve in Iraq so he could work in the environment -- and with the soldiers -- he had directly assisted as an Arabic translator at Ft. Gordon. "I wanted to go to Iraq so I could be in the environment with the soldiers I was protecting," he said. Though he could not discuss the details of his intelligence work because many were classified, he said it involved sending reports with critical information out to the frontlines, and he knew that in his work, he "made a difference."
Benjamin is now working in Atlanta at a computer company. When his military discharge became real, he recalled: "I was kind of in disbelief. I kind of expected someone to go, ha ha, we’re just kidding." But no one did. While he's enjoying his new job, it doesn't compare to what he did in the military. "I'm happy where I am now," he said "but I'd be happier in the military, doing something that mattered a little bit more."

[Flagg]

One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable).

These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing.

Democrats don't do that to me.
Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert?

FTS . . .

As my little brother says, "Both Republicans and Democrats are crooks, but at least the Democrats will leave a little bit on your plate after they rob ya blind."

to Republican politicians

But Tock what you are doing is making this personal. So Democrats are better for YOU, there are plenty of people the Democrats are not better for, or does only your rights matter? Why not stop voting for either of these corrupt parties and vote for someone who is truly for ALL the people. Whether they be gay, foriegn, rich or poor.

Right now you are basically saying that the Dems are for the minority groups and the Reps are for the rich religious fruitloops. What about everyone else though?

[Tock]

But Tock what you are doing is making this personal. So Democrats are better for YOU, there are plenty of people the Democrats are not better for, or does only your rights matter? Why not stop voting for either of these corrupt parties and vote for someone who is truly for ALL the people. Whether they be gay, foriegn, rich or poor.

Any politicans responsible for policies that remove good soldiers in wartime to satisfy religious prejudice are not useful politicians. With the US fighting Arabic speakers, and interpreters in short supply, barring gay people from working with the military only helps the enemy and prolongs the war.

And what sense does it make to get rid of an army soldier who's so talented at what he does that he's awarded the title "Soldier Of The Year?" What moron decided that exemplary soldiers can't serve in the military?

I'm not arguing for any special treatment for anybody. I'm saying that when the Republican Party insists that talented gay people be sh** on and prevented from participating like everyone else, bad things happen.
When Republicans keep good soldiers out of the military, then someone else has to take their place. Maybe that would be you, or a friend of yours, or maybe someone who didn't want to go to war.

Any politician who supports stupid policies needs to be voted out of office, regardless of party. And any politician who supports getting rid of the Army's Soldier Of The Year, or who supports getting rid of one of the few people who can understand what the military's enemy is saying, doesn't deserve re-election.

Yep, it's personal because it happened to me. But it's more than that, because the negative consequenses affect other people.