So much for a fair and open congress (promise by the dems)

[mikeb]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

(more here, emphasis is mine)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143

This is fucking omnious that congress feels that they can and should do something like this.

On the other hand, after 4 years of democratic heavy handed tactics like this the republicans should be a shoe in on the next election.

Peloisi is a witch.

[Sean88gt]

She is an evil, cold hearted, bitter slit.

[White trash wagon]

Both parties have a LONG history of trying to emasculate each other.

Karl Rove said a few years ago, he wanted to so damage the Democrats, that the Republicans would have a 50 year majority. I think he failed. Doesn't matter since both parties are corrupt.

[Hass]

Both parties have a LONG history of trying to emasculate each other.

Karl Rove said a few years ago, he wanted to so damage the Democrats, that the Republicans would have a 50 year majority. I think he failed. Doesn't matter since both parties are corrupt.

Maybe he's just getting started?

[Paladin]

Maybe this stuff will surprise the people who voted them in, but it doesn't surprise me.

[Sgt Beavis]

Why should it surprise anyone? It will just bite the Democrats in the ass when the Republicans retake Congress in the future.

[gpamp]

I clicked on that website and the first thing I see is Ann Coulter's eyes peering out from an add for... her. The site is obviously right-wing. Why does no one question this, yet when someone posts a link from CNN everyone yells "left wing media!!!"?

I'm sure Connie Hair (the writer of this article) has no motives to lie.

"Connie Hair is a freelance writer, a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference."

[Vertnut]

I clicked on that website and the first thing I see is Ann Coulter's eyes peering out from an add for... her. The site is obviously right-wing. Why does no one question this, yet when someone posts a link from CNN everyone yells "left wing media!!!"?

I'm sure Connie Hair (the writer of this article) has no motives to lie.

"Connie Hair is a freelance writer, a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference."

Even so, why does that make the statement untrue?

[ceyko]

Even so, why does that make the statement untrue?

I can't stand gpamp's statements, but this is right up there with all the "quotes" from BOB about guns. IMO, they are not valid sites, with all the video out there - not one has anything about BOB blabbing about it and nothing via CNN or Fox news (etc).

Sites like the one posted above have zero credibility to me. (main stream is bad enough, but at least they have other main stream media keeping them in check.)

In a news conference on Saturday O'Bama said, he is "going to save the world, stat. Then he is going to molest all white men's wives."

Quoted, so it must be true.

[gpamp]

Vert, I can't find that story ANYwhere else. Not to mention the wording. What credible reporter would say "Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol..." It's just a random partisan faux news piece.

[GhostTX]

Vert, I can't find that story ANYwhere else. Not to mention the wording. What credible reporter would say "Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol..." It's just a random partisan faux news piece.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/05/democrats-flex-muscle-new-house-rules/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=6581232

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28512317/

Don't look much, eh?

[Vertnut]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/05/democrats-flex-muscle-new-house-rules/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=6581232

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28512317/

Don't look much, eh?

Ummmm...dayum. Looks to be true!

[gpamp]

Ummmm...dayum. Looks to be true!

Thanks! It was nice seeing it in an unbiased light. Read those versions, then the one originally posted and you can kinda see why I didn't buy the slant.

[Geor!]

I clicked on that website and the first thing I see is Ann Coulter's eyes peering out from an add for... her. The site is obviously right-wing. Why does no one question this, yet when someone posts a link from CNN everyone yells "left wing media!!!"?

I'm sure Connie Hair (the writer of this article) has no motives to lie.

"Connie Hair is a freelance writer, a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference."

So says the jackass who posts articles from very far left websites.

[Paladin]

Thanks! It was nice seeing it in an unbiased light. Read those versions, then the one originally posted and you can kinda see why I didn't buy the slant.

So do you admit that the basic premise of the story was true and you just doubted it because you thought one story had some bias?

LOL, gpamp is finding bias in conservative slanted articles but finds left wing media completely unbiased.

[futant]

So says the jackass who posts articles from very far left websites.

no shit

[gpamp]

So says the jackass who posts articles from very far left websites.

But you do understand, that you all yell "THAT'S A LIBERAL SITE!!!" if I post something from CNN. Then, you get your panties in a wad, when I call out someone who posts something from an Ann Coulter sponsored site. Really??

[ThreeFingerPete]

But you do understand, that you all yell "THAT'S A LIBERAL SITE!!!" if I post something from CNN. Then, you get your panties in a wad, when I call out someone who posts something from an Ann Coulter sponsored site. Really??

But this article wasn't pulled out of someone's ass. As opposed to the drivel flowing from your keyboard.

[forever_frost]

I can see attacking one single source Gamp, however, you have not addressed what is being said and reported on, instead pointing and yelling "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[Yale]

I have to point out that I don't think House Republicans have done enough in the past 14 years, and this is definitely their just desserts. They got to power in '94 promising reform and more limited government, which they have not delivered. They proved that they were fine with taking away more and more of our freedoms, as long as they were the ones doing the taking. That being said, the HofR and the Senate are riddled with snakes on both sides of the aisles. The "elite" of both sides all went to the same schools, and take money from the same lobbyists. This shit is just a play to get us at each others' throats further. Fuck 'em all.

[Paladin]

It is useless to try and convince gpamp of anything that he doesn't see or hear from far left sources. He is too stupid, hypocritical, and dishonest to look at things from both sides.

He will now accuse me of the same thing, yet he knows I have voted for both Dems (2 times) and Republicans (3 times) in the last 5 presidential elections.

[gpamp]

It is useless to try and convince gpamp of anything that he doesn't see or hear from far left sources. He is too stupid, hypocritical, and dishonest to look at things from both sides.

He will now accuse me of the same thing, yet he knows I have voted for both Dems (2 times) and Republicans (3 times) in the last 5 presidential elections.

That's about the dumbest logic, ever. I know you like to throw out that you voted Democratic in the past, because in your twisted brain it somehow gives you credibility. You look back on those votes as a mistake. Why would that give you any cred, whatsoever? It's about like saying "I have black friends, so I can tell racist jokes". (If you turn this argument into "Democrats always bring race into it", you've lost the point and the argument. You're deleting what you were typing now, aren't you? Good boy.)

[5.0_CJ]

That's about the dumbest logic, ever. I know you like to throw out that you voted Democratic in the past, because in your twisted brain it somehow gives you credibility. You look back on those votes as a mistake. Why would that give you any cred, whatsoever? It's about like saying "I have black friends, so I can tell racist jokes". (If you turn this argument into "Democrats always bring race into it", you've lost the point and the argument. You're deleting what you were typing now, aren't you? Good boy.)

I tell racist jokes to my black friends, they can appreciate them even more.