Politics USA: Politics, the Government, etc.

Jon Stewart is my hero!

And Tom Delay IS dirty no matter how you look at it :smiley:


He's my hero too!! :D I'd marry him and have his babies ;)


And Tom Delay is very dirty...I have a feeling we haven't seen the half of it. Last week's Newsweek did an article about all of the business dealings and associations he had...it was scary.
 
I don't think anyone was saying he was "too young". He is the youngest Chief Justice ever though. All I was saying is that given his age he hasn't really been around to stir up too much controversy.
Nah. She will never be confirmed. Too many Republicans are very unhappy, because she is very moderate and they feel that the proper questions should be asked.

But when Democrats felt the same way about Roberts, they felt that we were being dividers, and that it was inappropriate.

hmmm...funny how that works.
well, the Republicans are the majority. and in this great country of ours, majority wins.

sucks to be in the minority, doesnt it?
 
well, the Republicans are the majority. and in this great country of ours, majority wins.

sucks to be in the minority, doesnt it?


In legislative bodies, then no, being in the minority isn't a good thing. And I think we're all pretty much aware that that's the reason something like what I mentioned occurred. Still funny though. The exact same argument was presented, but because Democrats are in the minority they were "dividers" when they brough up questions about Roberts. But Republicans are just doing their job and making sure everything checks out.

That being said I've been in the minority for my beliefs (based on where I live) for pretty much my entire life. And I absolutely relish it. I actually like being in the minority (to a point...I do wish we had a Democrats in the White House and a majority in Congress).
 
In legislative bodies, then no, being in the minority isn't a good thing. And I think we're all pretty much aware that that's the reason something like what I mentioned occurred. Still funny though. The exact same argument was presented, but because Democrats are in the minority they were "dividers" when they brough up questions about Roberts. But Republicans are just doing their job and making sure everything checks out.

That being said I've been in the minority for my beliefs (based on where I live) for pretty much my entire life. And I absolutely relish it. I actually like being in the minority (to a point...I do wish we had a Democrats in the White House and a majority in Congress).
im so sorry that you've been in the minority for your entire life. i'm beginning to know how you feel since i've started college.
 
im so sorry that you've been in the minority for your entire life. i'm beginning to know how you feel since i've started college.


lol...That's just the thing though, it doesn't bother me. It has made me value my opinions so much more, and has caused me to stand up for them on many more occasions then if I was surrounded by a bunch of liberals. I think it has made my beliefs a lot stronger. Plus I love debates, and to me it was more fun when I was one of the only ones debating my point, then I could do all the talking ;)

College has actually been a bit better. I mean I come from a very red state, so the number of Republicans do out number the number of Democrats. But up here I have friends who are Democrats (thanks to the lovely Democrats club). All my friends from home (minus 1) are Republicans...not that there is anything wrong with that, because I love them all. But we couldn't talk about political stuff (which I love...thus my major) because people would get too offended. So it is nice to be able to talk about my displeasure with the government with people up here.

Although, like I said I've never had a problem being in the minority.
 
Thought I'd go ahead and put this in here too.

SEC Issues Subpoena To Frist, Sources Say
Records Sought On Sale of Stock

By Carrie Johnson and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 13, 2005; A01

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has been subpoenaed to turn over personal records and documents as federal authorities step up a probe of his July sales of HCA Inc. stock, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the subpoena within the past two weeks, after initial reports that Frist, the Senate's top Republican official, was under scrutiny by the agency and the Justice Department for possible violations of insider trading laws.

Frist aides previously said he had been contacted by regulators but did not mention that the lawmaker had received a formal request for documents. The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the investigation, said Frist is expected to testify under oath about what he knew about the company's health in the weeks before he sold stock. Frist has told reporters that he did nothing wrong and that he directed the sale to eliminate potential conflicts as he considered a 2008 presidential bid.

The formal request for documents usually presages an acceleration of a federal probe. In Frist's case, regulators had to proceed with caution due to his status in Congress and their mutual desire to avoid triggering constitutional objections to the release of documents. The disclosure of the subpoena comes as Democrats blasted Frist anew for his financial and personal ties to Hospital Corporation of America, a Nashville chain founded in 1968 by his father and his brother, Thomas Frist Jr. Critics yesterday seized on a report that Frist held a substantial amount of his family's hospital stock outside of blind trusts between 1998 and 2002 -- a time when he asserted he did not know how much of the stock he owned.

The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that Frist earned tens of thousands of dollars from HCA stock in a partnership controlled by his brother, outside of the blind trusts he created to avoid a conflict of interest.

"It seems that for years, Frist may have misled his constituents and the American people about his health care industry stock holdings and the conflict of interest they created as he drafted our nation's health care policy," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "This deal raises even more questions about the Republican culture of corruption in Washington, D.C."

During his decade in the Senate, Frist has been active in shaping health care policy, including creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Republican ethics lawyer Jan W. Baran also scored Frist for his handling of his trusts. "This shows Senator Frist's capacity for clumsiness and bad timing," Baran said. "He was trying to insulate himself from political charges and now finds himself trying to defend himself because of the transparency of his holdings."

The subpoena for documents related to the July stock sales was written carefully to avoid asking for documents related directly to Frist's legislative actions, according to sources. By keeping the request focused on his personal activities, experts said, the SEC avoided raising objections from Senate lawyers who might otherwise have fought the request on the grounds of constitutional separation of powers.

The wording in the subpoena also ensured that Frist did not have to tell colleagues about the document request or to otherwise involve them in the investigation, congressional aides said.

The executive branch is prohibited from seeking documents or testimony that relate to "legislative acts and the motivation for the performance of legislative acts," said Kenneth Gross of Skadden Arps, an ethics law expert. The ban is part of what is called the Constitution's "speech and debate" clause, which insulates Congress from unwarranted intrusions by the executive branch of government. Writing a subpoena that does not run afoul of the clause -- and also possibly trigger a public disclosure of the subpoena -- required careful work.

"There are some gray areas, clearly, and it could be tricky," said Baran, of Wiley Rein & Fielding. Members of the House of Representatives must disclose to the full House when they are subpoenaed. The Senate has its own rules that sometimes require the body to deal with subpoenas, experts say, but the Frist subpoena apparently has not triggered any of them.

A spokesman for Frist said yesterday: "As we have indicated, Senator Frist has been fully cooperating with the authorities conducting the inquiries and will continue to do so, including keeping our public comments to a minimum. The issuance of a subpoena would be an expected and normal part of that process."

Within days of Frist's July stock sale, HCA warned investors about weaker-than-expected financial performance, which sent the stock price spiraling downward by 9 percent in one day. Frist may have begun the process of selling the stock April 29, months before the company's troubles were clear, according to e-mail messages between the Tennessee Republican, his chief counsel and his personal accountant that were reviewed by The Washington Post.

Former SEC enforcement chief and retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin said the agency has a "rich history" of probing officials at the highest level -- from Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas to Carter administration budget chief Bert Lance.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, a former House GOP member from California, has removed himself from hearing evidence on or voting on the case, citing his ties to Frist.
 
miers withdrew her nomination because she didnt want the senate to probe her on her advice to Bush over the years.


Not at all a surprise...in fact I'm surprised that there people out there who are suprised...if that makes any sense :blink:

I had a feeling that she was going to withdraw, it was only a matter of time.
 
im surprised as the reason she put forward. it makes you wonder, what is she hiding about Bush?
i think it had more to do with the fact that the President's poll numbers are at an all time low and are continuing to drop. harriet miers was putting further strain on his popularity. he can't have yet another person dragging him down at this point. granted, he does a pretty good job dragging himself down, but democrats and republicans expressed concern over miers. if they had continued with the confirmation process, it would have been a fiasco, a publicity blunder that quite frankly, the administration simply cannot afford right now.
 
i think it had more to do with the fact that the President's poll numbers are at an all time low and are continuing to drop. harriet miers was putting further strain on his popularity. he can't have yet another person dragging him down at this point. granted, he does a pretty good job dragging himself down, but democrats and republicans expressed concern over miers. if they had continued with the confirmation process, it would have been a fiasco, a publicity blunder that quite frankly, the administration simply cannot afford right now.


Exactly. While I think that she didn't want to disclose those documents, this would've happened anyways. I honestly believe that she was strongly urged by the Bush administration to withdraw. It was going to turn into even more of a mess...and they can't afford that right now.
 
First time this has happened in 25 years.

Senate Goes Into Rare Closed Session

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

By Sharon Kehnemui Liss

Fox News

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate went into closed session Tuesday after Democrats enacted a rare parliamentary rule forcing the shut down of the Senate so senators could speak in a classified session about the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid demanded the chamber be closed so they could hold a secret session that they say was prompted by "misinformation and disinformation" given by the administration prior to entry into the war in Iraq.

"The purpose of this closed session in the Senate chamber is to finally give the truth to at least the members of the Senate, to finally call to task the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee," said House Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., is the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Ranking Democrat Jay Rockefeller said Democrats were promised that oversight would be conducted on the war, but nothing has been done yet.

Durbin said Democrats want to discuss launching "phase two" of an investigation into whether President Bush and the administration misused data to justify war in Iraq. He added that the decision to call for a closed session was also prompted by the recent indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements in the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Libby was not indicted for revealing Valerie Plame Wilson's name, but for not being forthcoming about where he learned her name and whom he told. The investigation is ongoing, however, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told reporters last week.

A closed session is called when any senator demands one and a second motion is made. No vote is taken on whether to close the session. The last time a closed session was held was 25 years ago, Rockefeller said.

During a closed session, the chamber is shut to cameras, a security sweep is performed, and then Reid introduces a resolution calling for the launch of "phase two" of the intelligence committee's investigation.

"It is within the power of the majority to close down the closed session. They can do it by majority vote to return to the legislative calendar," Durbin said. "We're serving notice on them at this moment: be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality. The Senate Intelligence Committee has a responsibility."
 
I'm assuming you meant obstructionist. Considering the definition of an obstructionist is someone who systematically interrupts or blocks a process, I don't think that applies here...since this is the first time in 25 years since we've had a closed session.

I'm glad to see the Democrats grow a spine. It did what it was attended to do, got people's attention and it now looks like there is going to be an investigation. I don't see why the Republicans were so upset, they have a majority and with a majority vote can quickly "un-close" the session.
 
So I forgot the "c".

Either way, its no coincidence that this came just after the indictments brought against some republicans had nothing to the with the CIA leak. The CIA leak indictment was meant to lead up into putting the war in Iraq on trial. And when that failed, we got this
 
BBCNews said:
Colombia plans teenage condom law
Colombian teenagers could be forced to carry condoms in an effort to stop unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

The man proposing the scheme says people over the age of 14 in the town of Tulua should carry condoms, just as they carry ID cards, or face a fine.

"The measure does not force anyone to have sex, but to protect themselves," Councillor William Pena told El Tiempo.

But a local priest has compared the scheme to "selling guns on the street".

Last year, 14 people died in Tulua due to sexually transmitted diseases.

This shows an increase of 50% from 2003, according to figures published by the daily.

"This is a country with a lot of sexual activity and Tulua is no exception," Mr Pena told El Tiempo.

Moral question

Father Jesus Velasquez, however, describes the proposals as absurd.

"It would be like selling guns on the streets," he said. "What is needed is education and respect for moral and Christian values."

The scheme, which has yet to be formally proposed, has had a mixed support from officials and elsewhere.

Fifteen-year-old Luis Enrique Llanos believes the measure could be arbitrary.

"A repressive measure won't do any good," he told El Tiempo. "It's a personal responsibility whether to carry a condom or not. Not everyone over 14 is having sex."

i think this is a silly law.

When I first read this, my first reaction is that when you carry condoms in your wallet for a long period of time, they are more likely to break. That's like the first thing you learn in sex ed.

The city government should also consider the fact that they cannot make a blanket statement that everyone over 14 is at risk of having an uncontrollable desire to have sex. I still think that sex education, not necessarily abstinence only education, but sex ed that provides abstinence as the best option but also informs teens about proper methods of birth control to prevent STDs is the best way to go.
 
i think this is a silly law.

When I first read this, my first reaction is that when you carry condoms in your wallet for a long period of time, they are more likely to break. That's like the first thing you learn in sex ed.

The city government should also consider the fact that they cannot make a blanket statement that everyone over 14 is at risk of having an uncontrollable desire to have sex. I still think that sex education, not necessarily abstinence only education, but sex ed that provides abstinence as the best option but also informs teens about proper methods of birth control to prevent STDs is the best way to go.


While yes, rather silly I can see the point.

There are many sexual encounters that are one night stands and many times neither party is prepared to be protected, which is the truth regardless of your views on the matter. By making men carry condoms at all times, then they are at least putting into place a system where theoretically there should be practically no un safe sexual acts practiced. Will this work and will people follow it? That's yet to be seen and I do tend to be rather skeptical.

I think a better sexual education (without focusing on abstinence only) is probably a better way to go. But it would be interesting to see how this played out.
 
Back
Top