Thread Options 
|
#276895 - 11/19/04 09:16 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Look what else Bush's republicans are doing:
"House Republicans moved Wednesday to protect controversial Majority Leader Tom DeLay's job in case he is indicted by a Texas grand jury on political corruption charges.
Republicans changed an 11-year-old rule requiring party leaders or committee chairmen to give up those posts if indicted on felony charges."
So, many years ago Republicans instituted this ruling to keep the democrats honest. Now that they're not honest, they're repealing it? Gosh that kind of work is really going to unite the country isn't it?
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276896 - 11/19/04 09:56 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Since Dawnie will never be able to get beyond the presidential election, and since she blames Republicans for the elevation of CRA threshold levels to $1 billion and the now-rapid de-emphasis of CRA assessment requirements, we need some balance for these one-sided Dawnie posts.
Congress didn't do what you said. Congress agreed that it would not remove someone from a leadership post who is merely facing an allegation of an ethics violation, at least until there is a disposition or, if indicted, a conviction. The 11-year-old rule you speak of has already been set aside by Republicans in order to benefit a Democrat; to wit: When Barney Franks' live-in boyfriend was accused in the mid 1990s of running a male prostitution ring from Franks' Washington condominium, the then-Republican lead Congress agreed to await the disposition of the matter before deciding whether to remove Franks from his chairmanship. Likewise, in Delay's case, there are only allegations of an ethics violation and that he is the subject of an ethics probe. These are allegations. There is no disposition.
Using the Dawnie liberal logic, I should be able to accuse Senator Arlen Spector of something and, because of my allegations only, Spector should not be considered for the Senate judiciary chairmanship.
Congress has said that it will not have an automatic-ejection rule on allegation-only matters, and instead they, like the United States courts, will await the dispositions of allegations, probes, accusations and, on a case-by-case basis, indictments or charges. As a CRA specialist who looks out for the well-being of the downtrodden, and as a liberal, you should be praising Congress' move in safeguarding the rights of those who are the subject of accusations but who are not yet found in violation, found guilty, or convicted of anything.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276897 - 11/19/04 10:10 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Anon hit the nail on the head as to the facts of this rule change. The Democrats held the house for 50 years and never saw fit to institute such a rule. In 94, the Republicans adopted a rule that if indicted, a leader loses their post. Well-intentioned, yes, but it did not consider the implications in the instance of a politically-motivated prosecutor. One who, for example, had previously indicted Kay Bailey Hutchison on trumped-up charges.
The rule has not been repealed. It has been modified to say that the committee will meet to determine the nature of the indictment. If determined to be politically motivated, the person will not lose their post unless convicted.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276899 - 11/20/04 12:53 AM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Bitter Anon
It sounds as though you are the bitter anon because you were proven wrong. You said Bush had done more for minorities than Democrats and said "Look at all of his appointments. Hispanics, African Americans and women."
When it was pointed out that Clinton had appointed more of all three groups, you backtracked and tried to pick only certain appointments. I'm quite sure that if you get to cherry pick the ones you want to discuss, you can find the statistics you want, but it will not cover all appointments as you first stated.
As an additional smokescreen, you try to link this to the election results even though this is unrelated. You made a misstatement and I corrected you. That's all. Get over it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276900 - 11/20/04 02:33 AM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
As long as the minorities don't succeed as much as the white people do.
Bitter Anon,
You implied in your original statement that President Bush does not want "minorities" (your word) to succeed "as much as the white people do." The implication in your statement is that you feel that Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales are unworthy candidates and you believe that they are window dressing and not in powerful roles. You offered no substantive evidence of your premise. You then changed the discussion to former President Clinton's naming of routine administrators. Then, once again, you switched gears to discuss the total number (as in volume) of Clinton appointees who might be non-white and non-male, versus the total number named by President Bush. You aren't arguing that the Clinton appointees were in more substantive, visible and powerful roles than the Bush appointees; you're just arguing that there were more (as in volume). This was not the original anon's point.
The original anon's premise is that the appointments by President Bush to the most powerful positions are to appointees who are either non-white or non-male. Original anon correctly stated that these are positions of power. I agree with the original anon. It also appears that quite a few of the other posters agree as well.
Obviously you are angry and bitter; otherwise, you would not make baseless statements that imply that the President and Republicans are not sincere about diversity. It is also clear that your underlying anger is due, at least in part, to your unhappiness over the election results. You failed to support your statement that President Bush does not want "minorities" (your word) to succeed "as much as white people do", nor has anyone else on this entire thread come to your aid saying that they, too, agree that President Bush does not want non-whites and non-males to succeed.
I am happy with the election results; that makes me a happy anon. You are bitter over the election results; that makes you Bitter Anon.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276901 - 11/20/04 05:29 AM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
First of all, you are making assumptions. I was the one that rebutted the statement about the number of cabinet appointments, but someone else made the comment "As long as the minorities don't succeed as much as the white people do."
Second, the number of appointments was EXACTLY the originals anon's point he or she only switched after being proven wrong.
Finally, I don't know about the other anon but my comment had nothing to do with being bitter - just correcting the facts.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276902 - 11/20/04 03:46 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
First of all, you are making assumptions. I was the one that rebutted the statement about the number of cabinet appointments, but someone else made the comment "As long as the minorities don't succeed as much as the white people do."
Second, the number of appointments was EXACTLY the originals anon's point he or she only switched after being proven wrong.
Finally, I don't know about the other anon but my comment had nothing to do with being bitter - just correcting the facts.
You are wrong. I have only posted once on this thread and it was the first post. My point was that the Republicans are putting minorities in high profile jobs that hold a lot of power. Clinton didn't do this, and Kerry took tons of flack for not having a more diverse campaign staff. Democrats have done more for minorities than the Republicans, but after the 70s neither party really did anything, and right now the Republicans are doing more than the Democrats have in the past 24 years. Learn to read bitter annons.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276903 - 11/20/04 04:13 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Original Post: Quote:
President Bush is doing more for minorities and women than the Dems have done in the past 24 years. Look at all of his appointments. Hispanics, African Americans and women. Eventually minorities are going to realize that the Democrats need them to suffer in order to keep power, while it is the republicans who continuously put minorities in positions of power and also want them to succeed.
General Colin Powell - a position of power
Dr. Condoleezza Rice - a position of power
Attorney General Gonzales - a position of power
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276904 - 11/20/04 08:52 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Quote:
Since Dawnie will never be able to get beyond the presidential election, and since she blames Republicans for the elevation of CRA threshold levels to $1 billion and the now-rapid de-emphasis of CRA assessment requirements, we need some balance for these one-sided Dawnie posts.
I and many others aren't thrilled to see both a republican president and a republican congress. I would have much rather seen a democratic congress balance out the republican president, but so be it.
Will this mean that CRA will be under fire during the next four years? Of course it will. We've seen it already. The FDIC move is absolutely rediculous, allowing CRA credit for deals in "rural" communities? Competitively it's unfair for banks regulated and held to an exam that focuses on LMI people and small businesses, not country doctors.
If anon (hi ray)  had the ability to read he'd know that I've not ever said that the one billion threashold was a bad idea. I think it's fine and a fair step to take, but the additional goober added to the FDIC proposal is a problem, making CRA more difficult to understand and competitively unfair. If anon had read the entire regulation, he might see that too.
I spoke with a good friend of mine last night about the republican move in regards to the Wednesday meeting of the house. He's a republican lobbyist. His take, from the inside was, "We're in the majority now, screw the rules". This kind of thing is exactly the what devides our country.
Hey Ray, I voted Bush. Read on occasion? When ANWR opens up you might see why.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276905 - 11/20/04 09:29 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I spoke with a good friend of mine...He's a republican lobbyist. His take, from the inside was, "We're in the majority now, screw the rules". This kind of thing is exactly the what devides our country.
I, too, spoke with a good friend of mine. She's a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a community development and CRA professional. Her take from the inside is that it is wonderful that a Republican president was re-elected, that an obstructionist Senate Majority Leader was defeated, and that there are 60 million American stakeholders who believe that a U.S. President who is conservative and committed deserves to stay as CEO. She said that it is this kind of thing that makes America great, but she noted that sore liberals will be Daschle-like and will continue to complain of "being divided" -- a euphemism meaning, "We lost and we're sore losers and we're not going to cooperate and we're gonna drag our feet all the way".
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276906 - 11/22/04 06:22 AM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
I spoke with a good friend of mine last night about the republican move in regards to the Wednesday meeting of the house. He's a republican lobbyist. His take, from the inside was, "We're in the majority now, screw the rules". This kind of thing is exactly the what devides our country.
I think that people who hype reasonable rule changes (they make the rules for their caucus - how can this be "screw the rules"?) into something that they aren't, and who refuse to look at the context for those changes are dividing our country...
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276907 - 12/08/04 09:50 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
To the moron who posted about the Barney Frank and the alleged rule change in his favor: IT NEVER HAPPENED. The Barney Frank incident occurred in the 89-90 era. The GOP took congress in the 94 elections and thus was in no position to change rules. It was the democrats who put the rule in power in the first place, when Dan Rostenkowski was under threat of indictment and ultimately was.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276908 - 12/08/04 10:15 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
To the moron who posted about the Barney Frank and the alleged rule change in his favor: IT NEVER HAPPENED. The Barney Frank incident occurred in the 89-90 era. The GOP took congress in the 94 elections and thus was in no position to change rules. It was the democrats who put the rule in power in the first place, when Dan Rostenkowski was under threat of indictment and ultimately was.
This is why people are getting turned off with the cooler. There is no need to be degrading and call people morons. That is simply uncalled for. You can make your point without the name calling.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276909 - 12/09/04 04:31 AM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
This is why people are getting turned off with the cooler. There is no need to be degrading and call people morons. That is simply uncalled for. You can make your point without the name calling.
Good point, and we all agree...except for Bitter Anon. Bitter has deep anger and is unable to move forward after the election.
The original poster paid accolades to President Bush's diversity goals, then Dawnie posted that Rep. Delay would likely benefit from a rule permitting House members to continue serving until disposition of any charges lodged against them. A subsequent post mentioned how Barney Frank was allowed to remain during an investigation of him.
Let's consider what Bitter is bitter about. Rep. Barney Frank was having an affair with Steve Gobie, a convicted felon released from prison. Gobie was not only hired as an aid by Frank, but Gobie's income was hidden from the IRS and Gobie was also simultaneously running a male prostitution ring from Frank's Washington apartment, while Frank wrote glowing letters to Gobie's parole officers.
The point that was made earlier in the thread was that while Frank's offenses were egregious, he was allowed to remain in his committee assignment and Frank's ultimate disposition was a reprimand instead of a censure. Bitter misses the point of the discussion -- which is that a double standard was being applied. Bitter and Dawnie want Republicans to be removed from committees and from Congress based on allegations and not on dispositions, while at the same time they want Democrats to enjoy a different standard such as that enjoyed by Massachusetts U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds who was not removed while awaiting charges involving three teen pages; and the incident involving Massachusetts U.S. Rep. Barney Frank.
Bitter is bitter. He's stuck in a post-election rut.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276910 - 12/09/04 05:00 AM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
To the moron who posted about the Barney Frank and the alleged rule change in his favor: IT NEVER HAPPENED. The Barney Frank incident occurred in the 89-90 era. The GOP took congress in the 94 elections and thus was in no position to change rules. It was the democrats who put the rule in power in the first place, when Dan Rostenkowski was under threat of indictment and ultimately was.
Running this anon through WGrammar's pattern-checker engine finds a likely registered BOL user. Eleven hits for "democrat" spelled with a small d ; six uses of the word "moron"; and 17 cases where all capitals were used in unison for emphasis. Is is possible that Bitter is not actually a man but is a registered woman named Dawnie?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276911 - 12/09/04 08:53 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Let me be 100% clear here for those anon's who do not know. I DO NOT POST ANON IN THE WATERCOOLER! Never!!! Andy or another moderator who can see the ISP can verify this. And that will be all I have to say. Have a nice day arguing with your anon selfs. Oh by the way, I don't normally use the word moron because I always want to spell it wrong. I find it highly silly to call someone a "moron" and at the same time not know how to spell it.  I also rarely call names, unlike many of the posters in the cooler. If I did call names, I'd suggest that someone was an idiot for spending time searching out small d's verses large D's.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276912 - 12/09/04 10:06 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Let me be 100% clear here for those anon's who do not know. I DO NOT POST ANON IN THE WATERCOOLER! Never!!! Andy or another moderator who can see the ISP can verify this.
We will take you at your word that this means you are denying that you posted the comment. As to where you log-in from, uniquely identifying users just from a single ISP can be defeated by many ways but, again, we take you at your word. At one time in a thread asking why BOL users posted anonymously, I recall you said then that you had posted anonymously. Nevertheless, it is noted for the record that you do not post anonymously.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276913 - 12/09/04 10:10 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Please note the entire sentence, not just the few words you caught onto. I do not post anon IN THE WATERCOOLER. I have posted anon when asking sensitive questions involving the bank that I do not want attributed to our FI.
I am quite aware of how one can use multiple ISP's. I'd frankly have to care more than I do to make the effort, which would be mute, because I DON'T POST ANON IN THE WATERCOOLER! Clear now? I sure hope so. You might consider the same idea.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276916 - 12/09/04 11:33 PM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Hey Dawnie, do you post anon in the watercooler? Paragon does!
HA! Score one for Mikey...today has been hectic and I needed that chuckle!!!  
---------------------------------
It's good to be a QUEEN in the Water Cooler!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276918 - 12/11/04 01:36 AM
Re: Bush pushing women and minorities into power
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I second that - some interesting reading.
Stick around then...you'll find more that you like!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index