Author Topic: ooops, now the primitives Hate the fat guy too  (Read 1353 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57222
  • Reputation: +2172/-171
  • ^^^indefatigable
ooops, now the primitives Hate the fat guy too
« on: January 24, 2008, 05:21:20 AM »
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2753494

You know, during the very early 1990s, before I took off for worlds unseen, I used to watch the House of Representatives on C-Span; of course, I can't hear, but I doubt I was missing anything.

My favorite character was the perpetually indignant congressman from Vermont, spraying spittle and spattle as he raged in righteous anger, but my second favorite was that fat guy from somewhere in New York.

Anyway.

Quote
davidswanson  (482 posts)       Wed Jan-23-08 08:41 PM
Original message
 
Nadler Is Blocking Impeachment 

A private off-the-record meeting was held on Capitol Hill on Wednesday that included House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Subcommittee on the Constitution Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Judiciary Committee Member and advocate for opening Cheney impeachment hearings Robert Wexler, and several other committee members, activists, staffers, and former staffers from the Watergate days. I wasn't there, so I'm free to talk about what happened.

Wexler proposed opening impeachment hearings on Cheney. Conyers committee staffer Perry Appelbaum laid out instead a schedule for non-impeachment hearings over the coming 11 months. Conyers' notion is to hold non-impeachment hearings on "the imperial presidency" and run out the clock. I guess that would be sort of like a dozen police officers paying a non-arresting visit to the home of a mass murderer. Seriously? An "imperial" president, and you don't impeach him, and you don't retire or commit suicide? This baffles me.

Now, there are topics that have not been touched in congressional investigations over the past 12 months, such as the Iraq war lies. But a lot of the other topics have already been gone over, just absent the I word. What will differentiate the new non-impeachment hearings from the past year's worth of non-impeachment hearings? Of course, getting witnesses to show up and testify would be a change, but without impeachment, nothing will compel any witnesses to testify who have previously refused.

One of the big topics this group wants to go after is the firing of U.S. Attorneys, and - contrary to the position expressed today by the Democratic leadership - this group was in agreement that Congress should vote on contempt citations for Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. But, even understanding that nothing was going to budge on that any time soon, most of the Congress Members present still refused to back Wexler's proposal.

The chief opponent of impeachment hearings was not Conyers. It was Nadler. Nadler argued strongly against any use of the I word. He argued that Congress should focus on passing bills, even though they will be vetoed, and then pass them again next year.....

It's a very long article--well-written, though, when compared with the illiteratii of Skins's island--and so I included only the first few paragraphs, as it was more important to show the cause of this raging campfire.

Quote
aquart  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jan-23-08 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. Jerry's wrong. The usurped power has to be challenged.

If not, it will be the moonbat we have to impeach.


Quote
BrklynLiberal  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-23-08 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
 
2. Nadler is my rep, andI am VERY disappointed in his actions.

I intend to let him know this.

A primitive displays the usual primitive knowledge of civics:

Quote
loudsue  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jan-23-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #2

28. When is he up for re-election? Can we get rid of him?

Quote
lurky (483 posts)      Thu Jan-24-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #28

39. Every two years -- he's a congressman.

He's been in office 18 years, he's very popular, has a safe district, and he is an actual liberal with the voting record to show for it.

Who knows what made him do this. Maybe someone was putting pressure on him?

My personal speculation: The Democratic establishment (Pelosi, Reid, etc.) has long assumed that HRC would be the nominee in 2008. If Bush is being impeached at the same time a Clinton is running for president, it will be spun by the Republicans as payback for what was done to Bill. It would raise the whole Lewinsky scandal again, turn the campaign into the biggest slime-fest in history, and possibly cost the Dems the election. Since Nadler is part of the same New York delegation as HRC, maybe he was acting on behalf of the junior senator from NY?

Just idle speculation on my part, but I believe Clinton is behind the whole "Off the table" thing.

Quote
orleans  (1000+ posts)       Thu Jan-24-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #2

36. please let him know that even though i am from illinois *i* am very disappointed in his non-action as well.

get someone to run against him. that might get him off his ******* ass--especially if that someone comes out and lets people know they are running to do a job nadler is REFUSING to do--and they will do the right thing by the people and the constitution!

(these ******* congressfolk are sitting back on their collective lazy ass, mulling over their great health care, and pensions, and FIDDLING with themselves as the constitution burns)

yes, please tell him that from me. thanks.

Quote
sfexpat2000  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-23-08 08:45 PM
Response to Original message

3. I guess we haven't had enough yet. 

Thank you, David.

It's a blazing campfire, but one can't resist Doug's ex-wife:

Quote
sfexpat2000  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-23-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #7

12. I said months ago that she doesn't want the I word floating around while she tries to look presidential.

It's interesting because the primitives are loathing just about every ultra-extreme left-wing liberal in the House, excepting of course the UFO-earred St. Dennis.

Alas! the poor primitives! never satisfied with anybody or anything! Alas! the poor primitives!
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 05:24:27 AM by franksolich »
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline Sonnabend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • Reputation: +22/-35
Re: ooops, now the primitives Hate the fat guy too
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2008, 07:00:31 AM »
Please.Go ahead. Try and impeach.

I will enjoy seeing the Democrats commit political suicide.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57222
  • Reputation: +2172/-171
  • ^^^indefatigable
Re: ooops, now the primitives Hate the fat guy too
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2008, 07:58:42 AM »
You know, Nadler of New York used to puzzle me.

He's a pretty big guy, a great big guy with a lot of heft-and-heavy.

Unlike Fat Che however, who's similar in bulk, Nadler's fat doesn't sag.

I was always impressed that this man-mountain however could be so clean, neat, well-dressed, and fastidious.
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline RedTail

  • I can has title? ^_^
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
  • Reputation: +92/-26
  • A little bit of Anti-Hero goes a LONG way.
Re: ooops, now the primitives Hate the fat guy too
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2008, 09:41:06 AM »
You know, Nadler of New York used to puzzle me.

He's a pretty big guy, a great big guy with a lot of heft-and-heavy.

Unlike Fat Che however, who's similar in bulk, Nadler's fat doesn't sag.

I was always impressed that this man-mountain however could be so clean, neat, well-dressed, and fastidious.

Well, Mr. Solich. . .there is heft and there is heft- - I myself, standing at 5'5" and 160, could be classified as hefty on paper, but in person, I am told, my weight doesn't seem to show too much. . .Sometimes, genetics blesses you with an adjustable build; one that flatters the best parts of you no matter what weight the scale says. . .clothing helps too- - on a congressman's salary, you can tailor your bodily flaws away. . .the rest of us, however have to play trial-and-error at Target/Wal-Mart/Macy's/whathaveyou.

*TKay*

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57222
  • Reputation: +2172/-171
  • ^^^indefatigable
Re: ooops, now the primitives Hate the fat guy too
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2008, 10:12:15 AM »
Well, Mr. Solich. . .there is heft and there is heft- - I myself, standing at 5'5" and 160, could be classified as hefty on paper, but in person, I am told, my weight doesn't seem to show too much. . .Sometimes, genetics blesses you with an adjustable build; one that flatters the best parts of you no matter what weight the scale says. . .clothing helps too- - on a congressman's salary, you can tailor your bodily flaws away. . .the rest of us, however have to play trial-and-error at Target/Wal-Mart/Macy's/whathaveyou.

I dunno.

The varieties of people I see, I don't consider someone five and a half feet tall and 160 pounds "hefty," even if a woman.  Not petite or Twiggyesque, but far far from what is considered "fat."

And besides, given their lives' labors, women have a reasonable excuse for putting on some pounds--ALTHOUGH again I must stress, five and a half feet tall and 160 pounds isn't putting on some pounds--whereas men don't, really.

In my world, admittedly a very tiny one, the first thing I notice on a woman is her smile, or lack of a smile.

Her body size is like, about the 112th thing I notice.

Nadler of New York, however, like Fat Che, is fat, very fat.
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.

Offline DixieBelle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12143
  • Reputation: +512/-49
  • Still looking for my pony.....
I can see November 2 from my house!!!

Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.

Forget change, bring back common sense.
-------------------------------------------------

No, my friends, there’s only one really progressive idea. And that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government. That one genuinely liberal, genuinely progressive idea — the Why in 1776, the How in 1787 — is what needs to be conserved. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea. That is why we are conservatives. --Bill Whittle

Offline RedTail

  • I can has title? ^_^
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
  • Reputation: +92/-26
  • A little bit of Anti-Hero goes a LONG way.

Offline PatriotGame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4285
  • Reputation: +226/-96
  • Look at my BIG feet! Woof!
Re: ooops, now the primitives Hate the fat guy too
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2008, 03:16:52 PM »
Quote
sfexpat2000  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jan-23-08 08:45 PM
Response to Original message

3. I guess we haven't had enough yet. 


A Dummy's realization of their irrelevancy is truly a thing to enjoy.
           ►☼Liberals Are THE Root of ALL Evil!☼◄