Dingy, of course, has no "else" to "or."
Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) pledged in a conference call with reporters Wednesday to work with the Republicans but also emphasized the GOP’s responsibility to not block legislation.
Reid, especially, renewed a threat he made before, that Republicans must stop obstructing and start cooperating.
Can't wait for the House ethics investigations. For that matter, somebody ought to re-start HUAC.
I can think of at least three targets for that committee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Again with the Republicans MUST cooperate. No, Democrats MUST cooperate. Did they not get a message from the election yesterday? Not a clue? Dude...we don't like your policies. Even a little. Cooperate with Republicans on tax cuts and smaller government and you MIGHT get to keep your job. Yes, Harry, you snuck by this time. Not next.
"Can't wait for the House ethics investigations. For that matter, somebody ought to re-start HUAC.
I see you are on your smear kick again. Pathetic. Apparently you forgot how reputations were needlessly ruined by power hungry politicians through trumped up charges? Guess not.
"I can think of at least three targets for that committee."
Rove, Rumsfeld, and a player to be named later.
LOL @ anonymous. I see Democrats are still angry that their hero Alger Hiss went down in flames thanks to HUAC.
Yes, restart HUAC, even if just to annoy the liberals. Hey, didn't Nancy P and Joe B say that Republicans who didn't bow to her weren't patriotic?
Maybe it's time to play the same game as the Democrats.
Sen. Reid must not have read all those 2008 emails from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee about 60 seats as a means to one party rule.
Apparently you forgot how reputations were needlessly ruined by power hungry politicians through trumped up charges?
Got some examples, Anony? Or are you just foaming at the mouth again?
For starters, refer to the 1954 Senate Army Hearings.
You are embarassing yourself, Dad29. You tout protecting the Constitution, yet are willing to defend Joseph McCarthy's "patriotism" when he used the FBI, CIA, and the IRS to illegally obtain personal information about suspected communists. A REAL Christian would step up and denounce such heinous acts.
"Our weakness grows when we become intolerant of opposing ideas, depart from our standards of civil liberties, and borrow the policeman's philosophy from [Stalin who] we detest"--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
2nd Anony--Maybe it's time to play the same game as the Democrats.
What, are we four years old?
refer to the 1954 Senate Army Hearings.
An "embarrassment", eh?
You do know that SENATOR Joe McCarthy was not a member of the HOUSE, right?
Figured you didn't, which is why I asked, said the spider to the fly.
And by the way:
McCarthy was absolutely correct on EVERY allegation.
Reading might be hard for you, but try Stanton Evans' work on the topic.
Or try the Venona Papers (I'd suggest the translated version.)
Well, anony-deleted, that sort of comment makes you easy to identify by orientation.
"You do know that SENATOR Joe McCarthy was not a member of the HOUSE, right?"
No crap, Sherlock. The point is that McCarthy and others violated the Constitution in their quest to hunt communists. Ruined lives in the form of collateral damage? That's not what you say when your precious Roman Catholic Church is vilified. You go nuts when that institution is "unfairly" attacked through demagogic and unsubstantiated accusations.
Stanton Evan's work? Look at his particular bias. Of course he is going to defend McCarthy's actions.
He is a defense attorney who concedes nothing to McCarthy's detractors. He is also prone to conspiracy thinking—an approach that, by its nature, yields claims that can neither be confirmed nor falsified. Historians are not afforded that luxury.
He is a defense attorney who concedes nothing to McCarthy's detractors.
So? The questions are of fact, not of bias.
The point is that McCarthy and others violated the Constitution in their quest to hunt communists.
You have a cite? Or is that the opinion of some biased anony commenter?
Do you have proof to the contrary? Or are you clinging on to an "icon" no matter what the evidence offers to his activities which clearly violates several amendments to the Constitution?
www.acslaw.org/taxonomy/term/350
historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6459
hnn.us/articles/1568.htm
books.google.com/books?id=VnQduXa4JdoC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=joseph+mccarthy+and+using+fbi&source=bl&ots=SAeZIo6VjQ&sig=Kkvjk2PhvoSPiZ-RD1oGwT5T-aE&hl=en&ei=P3XTTIDSJInMhAfTs8XqBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=joseph%20mccarthy%20and%20using%20fbi&f=false
www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/605217-J-Edgar-Hoover-and-McCarthyism
There never was a HUAC-That was a liberal invention. However, there was a House Committee on Unamerican Activities. Big difference.
Marine42
William--I don't even know where to begin with your stupidity. :)
Using its power to subpoena witnesses and hold people in contempt of Congress, "HUAC", I mean the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, repeatedly pressured witnesses to surrender names and other information that could lead to the apprehension of communists and communist sympathizers.
Committee members often branded witnesses as "red" if they refused to comply or hesitated in answering committee questions. How "patriotic".
Following Senator McCarthy's censure, however, and his subsequent departure from the Senate, the general public grew increasingly wary of the "redbaiting" techniques employed by that and other committees.
And do you have the same disdain for those business leaders called "before the committee" by Waxman last year for having committed the sin of claiming Obamacare would raise their costs?
I didn't think so, since businesses just exploit the workers. Right?
William--I don't even know where to begin with your stupidity.
Gee. Wiki lists it both ways. I guess you're so f*&^n erudite that you don't use plebeian sources, eh?
ACS is strictly down the middle. No bias there./sarcasm The ACS article talks about HUAC--which was run by Democrat politicians for most of its existence, including a (D) Klansman. It does NOT talk about McCarthy.
And by the way, there are no mentions of specific "Un-Constitutional" actions by McCarthy there, or in Margaret Chase Smith's extended whine.
Deekaman--Your "comparing" the Waxman hearings with McCarthy's hearing? Wow!
Dad29--"The ACS article talks about HUAC...It does NOT talk about McCarthy."
It is a BOOK review outlining the methods HUAC and McCarthy directly employed to attack the civil liberties of Americans. No biased interpretation by ACS, just straight up facts and details. McCarthy's actions are clearly detailed in that resource.
Chase was clearly referring to McCarthy's behaviors.
Typical of you to dodge the issue by focusing on perhaps the "weakest
" of the sources provided.
Dad29--"I guess you're so f*&^n erudite..."
Does God approve of such foul language? Oh, that's right, you go to church and will be forgiven. My bad.
Post a Comment