Finally sone oversight

[Truthmatters]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ewsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter


This is how bad this last couple of congresses got.

They did whatever they wanted.



The Senate moved yesterday toward asking the Justice Department for a criminal investigation of a $10 million legislative earmark whose provisions were mysteriously altered after Congress gave final approval to a huge 2005 highway funding bill.

In what may become the first formal request from Congress for a criminal inquiry into one of its own special projects, top Senate Democrats and Republicans have endorsed taking action in connection with the earmark that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, inserted into the legislation.

 

[Truthmatters]

Come on republicans defend this one.

Im sure he would not have done this unless he felt that no republican would do a damn thing about it back in 2005. They thought they had the government completely in their back pocket.

 

[Truthmatters]

A senator makes his own change to a law and then the president signs it into law when it never passed congress.

So no one here cares about some assclown making up his own pork project right out of thin air?

People I cant believe this.

The republican congress did nothing about looking inot it once it was discovered and the Dems try to find out where it came from and it took months to finnaly get this scumbag to admitt he did it.

Now hes says its no big deal and everything is fine.

Lets hope this still packed DOJ department has at least a couple of honest people left in it or you will see alot more laws having things just added out of thin air huh?

10 million here and 10 million there starts to add up to real money after awhile.

 

[jillian]

I figure everyone agrees it's pretty slimy and we'll all wait to see the investigation results. ;o)

 

[Zoomie1980]

A senator makes his own change to a law and then the president signs it into law when it never passed congress.

So no one here cares about some assclown making up his own pork project right out of thin air?

People I cant believe this.

The republican congress did nothing about looking inot it once it was discovered and the Dems try to find out where it came from and it took months to finnaly get this scumbag to admitt he did it.

Now hes says its no big deal and everything is fine.

Lets hope this still packed DOJ department has at least a couple of honest people left in it or you will see alot more laws having things just added out of thin air huh?

10 million here and 10 million there starts to add up to real money after awhile.

$10,000,000 is all? Robert Byrd, former KKK Klansman, and otherwise known as the King of Pork, is BY FAR the biggest "earmarker" in the history of the Senate. 10mil is a couple of weeks worth for him....

 

[jillian]

$10,000,000 is all? Robert Byrd, former KKK Klansman, and otherwise known as the King of Pork, is BY FAR the biggest "earmarker" in the history of the Senate. 10mil is a couple of weeks worth for him....

You don't understand the allegation, do you? It's not about the money...it's about the fact that it was added AFTER CONGRESS VOTED ON IT.... unilaterally, without vote.

pssssssssssst... that's illegal by any measure.

 

[JimH52]

Come on republicans defend this one.

Im sure he would not have done this unless he felt that no republican would do a damn thing about it back in 2005. They thought they had the government completely in their back pocket.

They did. They had rubber stamp bush at the helm. How many vetos did he make during the GOP controlled congress? How about 0?

 

[JimH52]

This doesn't deserve its own thread but it is a great read written by conservative Joe Scarborough. Enjoy!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.scarborough.html

 

[Zoomie1980]

You don't understand the allegation, do you? It's not about the money...it's about the fact that it was added AFTER CONGRESS VOTED ON IT.... unilaterally, without vote.

pssssssssssst... that's illegal by any measure.

All earmarks are illegal as they are appropriations NEVER debated nor really voted on, explicitly. As far as I'm concerned ANY congressman who has EVER taken an "earmark" is a criminal. Which means almost ALL of them are, Dem or Rep. Congress' approval rating is now at about 10%. Basically the American people has already lost virtually ALL confidence in the entire institution.

So on the balance, I could care less about this meaningless triviality.

 

[jillian]

This doesn't deserve its own thread but it is a great read written by conservative Joe Scarborough. Enjoy!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.scarborough.html

I love joe scarborough... I don't agree with him on everything. In fact, I don't agree with him on a lot. But he's always smart...he's always thoughtful and he knows how to discuss issues without resorting to being a ranting and raving psycho.

 

[jillian]

All earmarks are illegal as they are appropriations NEVER debated nor really voted on, explicitly. As far as I'm concerned ANY congressman who has EVER taken an "earmark" is a criminal. Which means almost ALL of them are, Dem or Rep. Congress' approval rating is now at about 10%. Basically the American people has already lost virtually ALL confidence in the entire institution.

So on the balance, I could care less about this meaningless triviality.

So all earmarks are illegal because YOU say they are? That's an interesting standard to apply.

And you're still missing the point.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its amazing the facts that some can just slip out of a story to hear what they want to hear.

 

[JimH52]

All earmarks are illegal as they are appropriations NEVER debated nor really voted on, explicitly. As far as I'm concerned ANY congressman who has EVER taken an "earmark" is a criminal. Which means almost ALL of them are, Dem or Rep. Congress' approval rating is now at about 10%. Basically the American people has already lost virtually ALL confidence in the entire institution.

So on the balance, I could care less about this meaningless triviality.

You want to see illegal? Read this...

http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf

IV. CONCLUSION
Professor Kinkopf concludes that the use, frequency, and nature of the President’s signing statements demonstrates a “radically expansive view” of executive power which “amounts to a claim that he is impervious to the laws that Congress enacts” and represents a serious assault on
the constitutional system of checks and balances.77

King George is all his glory!

 

[Truthmatters]

That one yes.

and the subverting of the DOJ for political purposes.

A Lie filled march to war.

and so many damn things

 

[Dogger]

The Republican Congress always believed in "oversight"; they just subscribed to a different definition of the term.

Oversight -

[n] a mistake resulting from inattention
[n] **** Nothing to see here! ****
[n] an unintentional omission resulting from failure to notice something

Synonyms: inadvertence, lapse, **** Nothing to see here! ****

 

[Swamp Fox]

Come on republicans defend this one.

Im sure he would not have done this unless he felt that no republican would do a damn thing about it back in 2005. They thought they had the government completely in their back pocket.

If you think it's just the Republicans doing shit like this, you're dumber then I originally thought you were.

 

[Swamp Fox]

All earmarks are illegal as they are appropriations NEVER debated nor really voted on, explicitly. As far as I'm concerned ANY congressman who has EVER taken an "earmark" is a criminal. Which means almost ALL of them are, Dem or Rep. Congress' approval rating is now at about 10%. Basically the American people has already lost virtually ALL confidence in the entire institution.

So on the balance, I could care less about this meaningless triviality.

I agree, let's get rid of the whole bunch and find some people who actually want to be public SERVANTS!

 

[Swamp Fox]

That one yes.

and the subverting of the DOJ for political purposes.

A Lie filled march to war.

and so many damn things

And the Democrats have NEVER done anything illegal. They're such little saints who would make the world such a better place if the EVIL republicans would just get out of the way and let them do what is best for us all.

 

[jillian]

And the Democrats have NEVER done anything illegal. They're such little saints who would make the world such a better place if the EVIL republicans would just get out of the way and let them do what is best for us all.

which has what to do with anything? I know you don't undestand what they did, but really....

 

[JimH52]

And the Democrats have NEVER done anything illegal. They're such little saints who would make the world such a better place if the EVIL republicans would just get out of the way and let them do what is best for us all.

No, I tend to agree with Scarborough. A government with a divided executive branch and congress works better. There is a real atmosphere created for checks and balances. Before 2006 there was no checks and balances. Whatever bush wanted, congress passed and bush issue no vetos.

In remembering the years when Democrats occupied both branches of government, I don't recall such a cozy arrangement. Democrats hardly ever agree even among themselves. But given the chance and the right circumstances, they can also cook the books.