sikis
porno izle
porno videolar
porn videos

sikis
porno izle
porno videolar
porn videos

Aaaaah, I now see why President Obama and his Blue Dog Democrat advisers chose Gregg to be Commerce Secretary over many more liberal, progressive Democrats who would no doubt do a much better job…the upcoming 2010 census.

So, will putting a die-hard Republican in charge of the Commerce Department have any impact on how the census is conducted shortly?

And will this Republican-slanted census process cost a whole lot of Democrats, especially of the liberal, progressive persuasion, their voting power, thus costing Democrats seats in Congress?

What the hell is President Obama thinking?!?!?

February 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
_________

Obama is not keeping Bush’s policy of rendition, since it wasn’t Bush’s policy. It dates back to the Reagan administration There’s nothing wrong with rendition – it’s an important tool of international law enforcement that complies with the Geneva Conventions.

The problem is Bush’s policy of EXTRAORDINARY rendition – transferring detainees to countries known to practice torture. Obama is not continuing this policy.

Figures that a Constitutional Lawyer who, when under Oath to “Protect and Defend” said Constitution, voted to undermine said Constitution, would pick someone to head up an agency who once wished to abolish said agency he’s now being appointed to run, NO?

.

Anyway you look at it, it is pay to play, but it IS the way the game is played. He will only be confirmed because others have an assurance that it will not upset the balance of power. That is a quid pro quo. Senators confirm, if and only if, they have an assurance of a Republican replacement. The real story is Feingold speaking out about changing the system EVEN WHEN IT CURRENTLY BENEFITS HIS PARTY. When was the last time you saw a Republican propose something in the best interest of the country if it didn’t benefit their party?

Where are the other senators like Feingold (proud to be from Wisconsin).

Last time I looked, the illegality of extortion (which is what “pay to play” is), was not dependent on money changing hands.

Before you said it was bribery, now you’re saying it’s extortion. “Pay to play” would be bribery. Extortion is coercing someone to do something with the threat of releasing embarrasing or incriminating information about them.

Some states actually have laws on the books preventing an interim appointment from changing the majority party in the Senate. There is a good reason for this. Whether you or I agree with it, NH elected a Republican to the Senate. Therefore, the NH voters are the ones who’s will should be respected.

In this case, it’s perfectly fair to extract a promise before taking the job. Mind you, it’s not legally binding, and Lynch can still do whatever he wants. But if he lies to Gregg and goes back on it, that would be a totally dick move.

That’d really confuse the die-hard Palinbots.

Just as we had occasion to doubt Obama’s planning during his campaign, I think we need to trust — not blindly, just patiently — this new notion of change.

which would be worse, that? or being elected?

but, yes, feingold does have it right…

and i dunno how “batshit crazy” burris is, but we’ll soon see how he works on the U.S. level… i’m just amazed that he’s out of southern illinois… there IS a LOT more to illinois than chicago…

Screw ‘em. They LOST. And they lost for good reason. I wish the Dems would remember that.

Last time I looked, the illegality of extortion (which is what “pay to play” is), was not dependent on money changing hands.

Hope that crow both tastes great and is more filling.