Stupid Republican idea of the day

  • Thread starter Thread starter acsenray
  • Start date Start date
A

acsenray

Guest
I don't see what's wrong with the general concept here. I object to someone being granted super-special public offices based solely on their marital status with no accountability to the public. If the president believes that his or her spouse is an appropriate person to whom to grant public policy tasks, then the spouse should be officially appointed to a named position in the executive department and should be subject to all the public participation/open government/sunshine laws that any government official or body is subject to.

Given that, I'm not quite sure I understand what Issa's proposal is. Didn't the whole Hillary Clinton health care lawsuit establish that she had to conduct public business in public?
 
RNC pulls game selling offensive items
A Republican National Committee online game that challenges players to spend trillions of dollars was taken down today after reports that it offered some objectionable items for sale
Click to expand...
 
It must happen the other way, right? Right? Somewhere there is a person who is recording when they accidentally call Sully Sullenberger a Democrat, right?

Or is this like how the scanner at the supermarket never gives me an outdated sale price, but will sometimes accidentally overcharge me for a sale item?

Goof. Balls.
 
Diogenes pretty much nailed it:

Issa's only motivation is to harrass the Obama's and hope to contrive a political issue that Obama isn't being "transparent" enough. Obviously this has no chance to go anywhre -- it's not a serious or sincere attempt at real legislation (the last thing the Republicans would want is for an future Republican First couples to be saddled with this garbage). It's just about throwing rocks at the Obamas.
Click to expand...
There has been no indication whatsoever that Michelle is going to be in charge of any policy or even be included in any policy decisions. This is pandering to the people who believed that "whitey" crap, who took her 'proud of America' comments out of context and twisted them to make her look like an angry black woman, who just really hate the fact that Barack and Michelle Obama even exist, let alone occupy the White House.

Fuckheads.
 
5-4-Fighting said:
something should have told her it would be quite impolitic to suggest the antidote to the Democrat [del]socialist[/del] progressive actions had to be any particular race -- and stopped herself.
Click to expand...
Sure, but Bobby Jindal's gotta be disqualified somehow, doesn't he?
 
BrightNShiny said:
I don't feel like starting a new thread, but apparently CBS golf analyst David Feherty decided to slur our military by claiming: "if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death." See here for Media Matters link.

Seriously, WTF? Why would anyone in the public eye think it is acceptable to accuse our military of being traitors?
Click to expand...

I think what you've got hold of there is what is commonly referred to as "a joke". Admittedly, one in bad taste, but I don't think he was claiming that Sgt. Rock would literally pop a cap in Nancy Pelosi.
 
The Tooth said:
Can I play? Ladies and gentlemen, I present T. Boone Pickens, who is certainly stupid and most likely Republican:



Evil, pure and simple from the 8th Dimension.

I'd say to argue that you deserve plunder because you got hurt plundering it is the dumbest thing I've heard since a co-worker told me that insects aren't animals. And that's pretty dumb.
Click to expand...
Sounds more like Pickens thinks HE deserves it because someone ELSE got hurt or killed.
:dubious:
 
elucidator said:
So, in order to support your view of this trivial incident, you insist that I carefully review the facts of this minor footnote to history. Perhaps then, I might better appreciate your stance on this utterly vapid event?

And to accomplish this end, you would have me read one of the snottiest pedants to ever tap a typewriter key?
Click to expand...
Hey, his was merely the first suitable account I happened upon while Googling. :D

And it matters not in the slightest whether you find that incident trivial, vapid or of no import whatsoever. What does matter is that I don't agree, and that it was based upon my assessment of the likelihood of (apparently sucessful) chicanery on Hillary's part with regard to that incident that I posted the comments that Equipoise listed above.

So I guess I'm gonna have to retract that 'men of good character' part where you're concerned, given that rather than acknowledge that I never so much as insinuated that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster you've simply switched instead to quibbling over whether the events that did trigger my comments really happened or not.

GIGObuster said:
I guess I have to deny his credibility because he never bothered to write a correction...
Click to expand...
Why should he write a correction?

He laid out an accurate accounting of the events that transpired, and as it happens the independent counsel could find no proof that document tampering/removal occurred as a result of those events.

How is anything that Safire wrote negated by the fact that no forensic proof of wrongdoing could be found?

And besides, denials and lack of forensic evidence does not innocence make, as we all found out once the existence of a certain blue dress finally came to light. :D
 
Whoo! All the 'Let 'em drown and rot in the sun*' supporters have themselves a champion. Meet Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Ms. Let 'Em Drown And Rot In The Sun said:
Let's agree that we're going to have PAYGO enforcement. That we're not going to cry 'emergency' every time we have a Katrina, every time we have a Tsunami, every time we have a need for extra spending, that we don't go call for a special appropriation that allows us to circumvent the PAYGO rules.
Click to expand...



*Gotta come up with a catchy name for these folks.
 
Regulating the First Lady

House Republicans are pressing for a change in federal law that could force Michelle Obama and future first ladies to do more of their policy work in public. But Democrats warn President Obama may take the attempt personally
Click to expand...
 
You know that story cites a Democratic Representative who was offended by it, right?
 
Regulating the First Lady

House Republicans are pressing for a change in federal law that could force Michelle Obama and future first ladies to do more of their policy work in public. But Democrats warn President Obama may take the attempt personally
Click to expand...
 
1) If it is an accurate, good faith report, I don't care who is offended

2) If it is an inaccurate, partisan / bad faith report, it should have been quashed by some review process

3) My guess here, it is a good faith report (and a best guess, as strong as a report like that can be) and the "vetting" she speaks of is purely political, and not related to accuracy per se. Part of her responsibility is to not hang albatrosses around the neck of the administration- that competes with the responsibility to get accurate information to law enforcement. When in competition, useful information should win.

Of course I am biased- this administration strikes me as thoughtful and competent so I view things through that lens. I'll be interested to see what happens with this going forward.
 
Back
Top