Chair on a Panel, are you kidding me?!?!?!?

[stebo0728]

Ok so Sestak has finally "come clean" about this job offer, and he is aligning with the statement earlier today regarding Bill Clinton offering him a seat on a Presidential Panel? WTF? Like that could even remotely be the truth, who considers a seat on a panel a job? For one it doesnt pay, and for another, it way outranks Sestak, why would it even remotely be expected to appeal to him? I smell a coverup, any thoughts?

[audtatious]

First interview he hinted at a high-level job. Now it's just a "freebie".

Not buying it.

[stebo0728]

Im not buying it either, I just hope the media doesnt buy, and keeps after it, either he is lying now or he lied to begin with, this is starting to look like a season of 24 lol

[AZhitman]

William Jefferson Clinton being dishonest?

Never.

[audtatious]

and that's a cigar you can smoke...

[IBCoupe]

If we imagine for a second that it's the truth, you guys sure do look silly. Innuendo and accusation of wrongdoing are only enflamed by coming clean! Now they've done wrong and they're lying about it!

When the President's father (God himself, right?) comes down and explains it to you, you'll cry nepotism, too.

[audtatious]

Obama's father is GOD? I thought it was some African dude who ran around knocking up a bunch of women?

[IBCoupe]

That wouldn't jive with being the Messiah. If that were true, Jesus wouldn't have been the Messiah; he'd just have been some guy running for President.

[stebo0728]

Well Ive been thinking about this whole shenanigan this weekend. Lets remember Obama is a chicago politician, this whole deal is just par for how he operates so I guess it should be no surprise to anyone. Even if he didnt "authorize" the offer, he has surrounded himself with people who operated the same way he does, so I would not be surprised to see this sorta thing become the norm during this hopefully only 2 more years.

[WDRacing]

I would not be surprised to see this sorta thing become the norm during this hopefully only 2 more years.

My biggest fear in 2 years is the Republicans splitting votes with the Tea Party. That would give the Dems a clear advantage.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not sure that the Tea Party will be splitting votes this November, let alone November 2012.

[stebo0728]

I dont see the Tea Party causing a problem either, I do wonder though, could we be seeing the beginnings of a new political part, the Tea Party? One with actual conservatives in it?

[WDRacing]

I'm not sure that the Tea Party will be splitting votes this November, let alone November 2012.

I dont see the Tea Party causing a problem either, I do wonder though, could we be seeing the beginnings of a new political part, the Tea Party? One with actual conservatives in it?

I never thought we'd have a black, Muslim POTUS...yet we have one. I never thought I'd see our country turning into a Nanny State...yet it sure is happening.

Be prepared for the worst, pray for the best. I've always been a fan of that line of thinking. Tons of things can happen between now and then. I see the Tea Party gathering strength by simply preaching what people want to hear. All they have to do is spread information well and they can align people against bad Republicans and basically all Dems. People like myself who hate everything that both parties have become are looking for something to get behind. Right now the only thing we have is the Tea Party. They stand for small Gov, conservative spending and individual freedoms. It doesn't matter if you're gay or stock pile ammo in broken down vehicles sitting in your front yard, you can be a member of the Tea Party because they share broad goals that almost anyone can get behind.

I hate the fact that Palin has attached herself She is NOT someone that I would pick as a figure head. Although I could "get behind her" though

[stebo0728]

Lol - I agree, I consider myself a conservative, NOT a republican. I just so happen to vote republican more most elections, but give me a good Zel Miller democrats, someone more aligned with the original ideas of our nation, and he's got my vote. I am equally irritated with both major parties in this "bi-partisan" system we have, a system our founding fathers warned us to stay away from....we didnt listen. But unlike you, I am not looking for another party to get behind. Any party is set up for failure as soon as it forms. The whole notion of a party is flawed and useless over time. Just like Labor Unions, they look great for a bit, then its "woah...i didnt sign up for that" buyers remorse galore. We need to get back to a system of people, not parties. Everyone needs to be known for what THEY, INDIVIDUALLY, believe is best for the nation. We need to vote for them based on what THEY, INDIVIDUALLY will vote for, or not vote for. Not some prepuce that will coral the public into their corner long enough for an election, then go running back to the party line as soon as they are elected. Its not ok to be a republican and not have a problem with abortion, but it is ok to be a conservative and realize that abortion is a waste of time amidst all the other crap we have to deal with. Thats me, I dont agree with abortion, but hey so what, Roe-V-Wade aint going anywhere, lets start dealing with problems we can do something about. And thats why these stupid parties, both of em, are a wasted of time. I understand the responses I will get that will say "well thats just how it works now" Well screw that, allegiance to Great Brittiain was "just how it works now" in the 18th century, and 87% of colonists were ok with that, but the 13% knew what had to be done and had the balls to do it. The unpolular triumphed, and thats what we need today.

There, I ranted

[srellim234]

I never thought we'd have a black, Muslim POTUS...yet we have one....I see the Tea Party gathering strength by simply preaching what people want to hear. All they have to do is spread information well...

Sorry, but your ignorance is showing that you are EXACTLY an ignorant voter who will allow himself to believe whatever he is fed by the liars he wants to agree with.

Obama is 50% white. The press wants to call him black. The blacks want to call him black. Whites who judge by skin color call him black. As a politician he plays both sides to maximize his vote count.

You've been fed the Muslim line, too, because that's what you WANT to believe, not what the facts are. Is George Bush a Muslim, too? They both chose the same Christian Church in Washington, D.C. to attend.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 10,00.html

[mattblancarte]

I just expect this type of behavior from any and all Presidential administrations. Dem or Repub, we're going to have corrupt deal-making.

Good luck getting it investigated any time soon. Dems control all.

[WDRacing]

I never thought we'd have a black, Muslim POTUS...yet we have one....I see the Tea Party gathering strength by simply preaching what people want to hear. All they have to do is spread information well...

Sorry, but your ignorance is showing that you are EXACTLY an ignorant voter who will allow himself to believe whatever he is fed by the liars he wants to agree with.

Obama is 50% white. The press wants to call him black. The blacks want to call him black. Whites who judge by skin color call him black. As a politician he plays both sides to maximize his vote count.

You've been fed the Muslim line, too, because that's what you WANT to believe, not what the facts are. Is George Bush a Muslim, too? They both chose the same Christian Church in Washington, D.C. to attend.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 10,00.html

Calm down dude...

So history isn't calling BO the first black POTUS? Here's an idea, get control of your emotions before you attack a statement I made when I was only trying to get across a point that anything can happen. Jesus dude...

If I offended you some how, I apologize.

[WDRacing]

But unlike you, I am not looking for another party to get behind. Any party is set up for failure as soon as it forms.

I'm not looking for a "party" per se, I just happen to go along with what the Tea Party is trying to do. In the end I cast my vote just like you do, which person has ideals that most match my own.

Constitutional Conservatism sounds like a good label if I had to come up with one

[IBCoupe]

My problem with supporting the Tea Party is that any two Tea Partiers share only one value: anger or dissatisfaction with the government. That's not a platform, that's an emotion.

The actual beliefs about what should be done never seem to get past "Throw the bums out." There's people who hate Medicare, and there's people who love Medicare. There's people who hate defense spending, and there's people who want more defense spending, all calling themselves members of the Tea Party.

I'm not trying to criticize people who do choose to support it for whatever internal reasoning they employ, I'm just explaining why I can't. I'm a registered independent in the State of Connecticut, and I'm not particularly angry or dissatisfied with government on the whole.

[stebo0728]

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

In case anyone is clueless, thats the Declaration of Independence. That time is now, and I believe the Tea Party is the beginnings of this movement, perhaps not the movement itself, but its the birthing pains at the very least ...

[colies97~240sx]

Sorry a bit off topic but I have to say...

Obama's father is GOD? I thought it was some African dude who ran around knocking up a bunch of women?

HAHA Funniest thing I have read all month! (yes this includes the month of May)

[WDRacing]

My problem with supporting the Tea Party is that any two Tea Partiers share only one value: anger or dissatisfaction with the government. That's not a platform, that's an emotion.

The actual beliefs about what should be done never seem to get past "Throw the bums out." There's people who hate Medicare, and there's people who love Medicare. There's people who hate defense spending, and there's people who want more defense spending, all calling themselves members of the Tea Party.

I'm not trying to criticize people who do choose to support it for whatever internal reasoning they employ, I'm just explaining why I can't. I'm a registered independent in the State of Connecticut, and I'm not particularly angry or dissatisfied with government on the whole.

Nothing wrong with that opinion at all. I tend to side with the people that more or less follow Constitutionalism. Individual freedoms being the first and foremost consideration, everything else second and in varying degree's.

The Tea Party to me is like a Hockey Team, you might not agree with everyone on the team about everything little thing, but the end goals remain the same. If your views are different about certain things I could really care less so long as the broad strokes are the same.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

In case anyone is clueless, thats the Declaration of Independence. That time is now, and I believe the Tea Party is the beginnings of this movement, perhaps not the movement itself, but its the birthing pains at the very least ...

I don't know how far the Tea Party will go or to what end, but I'll agree that the DOI is an impressive peace of literature. Sometimes I think everyone should give it a reread.

[audtatious]

My problem with supporting the Tea Party is that any two Tea Partiers share only one value: anger or dissatisfaction with the government. That's not a platform, that's an emotion.

The actual beliefs about what should be done never seem to get past "Throw the bums out." There's people who hate Medicare, and there's people who love Medicare. There's people who hate defense spending, and there's people who want more defense spending, all calling themselves members of the Tea Party.

I'm not trying to criticize people who do choose to support it for whatever internal reasoning they employ, I'm just explaining why I can't. I'm a registered independent in the State of Connecticut, and I'm not particularly angry or dissatisfied with government on the whole.

Dem policy is usually all due to emotion so what's wrong with the Tea partiers doing it?

Regardless, I disagree. The Tea Party movement is a bi-partisan group who are tired of continued Gov growth, BIG deficit spending, social programs out of control, increasing taxation, and are for a more responsible Gov.

[srellim234]

WD- It's not a matter of offending me. I also wasn't fired up when I made that statement. I'm just sick and tired of people who make statements like you did and then, when confronted with facts, completely ignore them and instead focus on the person who called them on it.

Rush, Glen Beck, "birthers, people like yourself when calling Obama a Muslim are all guilty of that practice and never do own up to their own shortcomings that way. You made an absolute statement that the POTUS is a Muslim. Back the statement up or retract it. From my side of the computer screen it appeared that you were trying to foster sympathy for your beliefs by trying to get away with a statement that you knew would emotionally inflame people against the current President, even though it's factually false.

History is still dealing with the current President as current. Those who call him black now may see him quite differently as time goes on and eventually we do get a 100% "black" President to compare him to. History books and historians in the future will deal with that subject but how history sees him hasn't been written yet.

I despise trying to support conservative fiscal values and having people dismiss me as another wacko right-winger who supports the kind of people listed above. Those are the people who really hurt the cause in the long run because they have lost credibility with the majority of people before the discussion even starts.

[stebo0728]

IB - you hit a little on one of my fears for how Obama will indirectly affect racial affairs down the road. Im white, caucasian, cracker, however you wanna refer to me i dont care, but I am no a racist. I was actually quite excited from a historical standpoint when Obama was elected, but my dissaproval of policies far outweight that, but my fear is that the more radical white, and possible some of the moderate, will get such a bad taste from this "first black president" so to speak, that it may be hard to see another elected, regardless of their policies.

Obama denies his Muslim ties, we just have to take his word on that, there is no real proof to say he IS, but theres really no real proof to say he ISNT either. But regardless, this is America, so what if he IS muslim, I mean this is hardly the time for a muslim president to look politically correct, but if he adheres to the constitution, and holds the values that that most of this nation holds, he'd be a refreshing change from what we have now. So really the muslim part is non-issue to me, race is non-issue, the real issue is his politics, his value, and his plans for this country. As far as the "birthers" go. I never really dug too far into the issue, but, lets not forget the cut-throat ruthless Hillary Clinton that was running against Obama. I cant imagine a world where the birth certificate was a viable issue, and SHE didnt find 18 ways to exploit it against him. History may show different, it usually does. I believe "W" will be painted in a much kinder light once the spectacles of history come on. Theres so much that goes on these days that we have no clue about until much further down the road.

Oh and just for the record, President David Palmer was the greatest president of our time, white black or yellow -

[IBCoupe]

My problem with supporting the Tea Party is that any two Tea Partiers share only one value: anger or dissatisfaction with the government. That's not a platform, that's an emotion.

The actual beliefs about what should be done never seem to get past "Throw the bums out." There's people who hate Medicare, and there's people who love Medicare. There's people who hate defense spending, and there's people who want more defense spending, all calling themselves members of the Tea Party.

I'm not trying to criticize people who do choose to support it for whatever internal reasoning they employ, I'm just explaining why I can't. I'm a registered independent in the State of Connecticut, and I'm not particularly angry or dissatisfied with government on the whole.

Dem policy is usually all due to emotion so what's wrong with the Tea partiers doing it?

Regardless, I disagree. The Tea Party movement is a bi-partisan group who are tired of continued Gov growth, BIG deficit spending, social programs out of control, increasing taxation, and are for a more responsible Gov.

Emotionally-based policies are bad, and I'll call them on that wherever they come from. But I don't think that's all the Democratic party stands for.

Anger/dissatisfaction forms the basis of the tea party (not "policies"), and that's the difference. They don't have an identifiable set of policies. If one were to investigate, what more do we get than the above line about what the Tea Party stands for?

And I'd like to make clear: this isn't a criticism of people who are angry, or people who are members of the Tea Party. This is a criticism of the feasibility of turning that emotion into a tangible policy that can be evaluated. If the rallying cry is, "Throw the bums out," and the response is, "And then what?" there must be some kind of response ready, and I just don't detect that.

[WDRacing]

WD- It's not a matter of offending me. I also wasn't fired up when I made that statement. I'm just sick and tired of people who make statements like you did and then, when confronted with facts, completely ignore them and instead focus on the person who called them on it.

Rush, Glen Beck, "birthers, people like yourself when calling Obama a Muslim are all guilty of that practice and never do own up to their own shortcomings that way. You made an absolute statement that the POTUS is a Muslim. Back the statement up or retract it. From my side of the computer screen it appeared that you were trying to foster sympathy for your beliefs by trying to get away with a statement that you knew would emotionally inflame people against the current President, even though it's factually false.

History is still dealing with the current President as current. Those who call him black now may see him quite differently as time goes on and eventually we do get a 100% "black" President to compare him to. History books and historians in the future will deal with that subject but how history sees him hasn't been written yet.

I despise trying to support conservative fiscal values and having people dismiss me as another wacko right-winger who supports the kind of people listed above. Those are the people who really hurt the cause in the long run because they have lost credibility with the majority of people before the discussion even starts.

I wasn't trying to foster anything dude. I was inferring that anything can happen. For the record, I don't like being called ignorant...even if I say something that isn't correct, I'm far from ignorant. You could have said what you did in a fashion that didn't involve slandering me. But you didn't, you verbally attacked me...the same guy calling fowl because of what?

So who's trying to get sympathy now?

Lets just assume I'm ignorant, if you would simply ignore my posts from here on out I'll be more then ok. That way I can talk to others without worrying about how you're perceived because of people like me

[audtatious]

Emotionally-based policies are bad, and I'll call them on that wherever they come from. But I don't think that's all the Democratic party stands for.

Not all, correct. There are some decent "moderate" dems out there.....They are just overshadowed by those running their party.

Anger/dissatisfaction forms the basis of the tea party (not "policies"), and that's the difference. They don't have an identifiable set of policies. If one were to investigate, what more do we get than the above line about what the Tea Party stands for?

There are plenty of identifiable policies they are against, most everything the Obama Admin is trying to force feed us . The problem with the Tea Party is having true representatives who support their viewpoint. The Rep party is full of moderate progressives which don't fit the bill. That's why you will hear Tea Partiers stating they are Conservatives or Fiscal Conservatives instead of Republicans.

And I'd like to make clear: this isn't a criticism of people who are angry, or people who are members of the Tea Party. This is a criticism of the feasibility of turning that emotion into a tangible policy that can be evaluated. If the rallying cry is, "Throw the bums out," and the response is, "And then what?" there must be some kind of response ready, and I just don't detect that.

Change is slowly coming. You have to get the bums out in your own house first.

[IBCoupe]

But you still need a plan of your own. Simply being against what the other guy's for doesn't actually establish a policy. If you get elected on a platform like that, you'll be worse than someone with identifiably bad policies - you'll be someone with no policies.

[stebo0728]

How about let the people running come up with their own plans, stop depending on platfrom plans and lets hash out individual plans. How about ending the rediculous practice of cramming 1.21 gigawats of legislation into every bill. The bills get so elaborate, its no wonder you have so many congressmen being called to the carpet for not reading a bill they voted for. Their aids read the bill and advise, we didnt vote for the aids dammit. And give the president line item veto for goddness sake. Im not a fan of ending the fillabuster because of future implications, just as changing the cloture vote to 60 from 67 has given us some s*** bills (this was done to end slavery, good bill, bad measure) and now we are paying for it. End the fillabuster and the minority can just stay in their quarters and cast absentee votes all day. But I do very much agree with line item veto. The Obama Train promised to comb through legislation with a "scalpel" Well thats an empty promise cause without line item veto, its all or nothing on bills that have hundreds of issues all crammed into one ugly bill. Most of these mega bills are platform bills, "hey im runnin to wendys, while im there u want something too?" sorta bills and its just a damn shame...