I guess all those facts are irrelevant.

It is when it comes to the democrats and the black leadership.

Put on your readin glasses;

Put yours on.  Other than the SCOTUS statement, he is correct.  HOw many of all those political plums were decision making ones?  Sure, blacks got a lot of the 2800.  Mostly do nothing jobs for payback, but nothing of substance.

Two words: Thurgood Marshall.

Noted.  Lest we forget.

Put yours on. Other than the SCOTUS statement, he is correct. HOw many of all those political plums were decision making ones? Sure, blacks got a lot of the 2800. Mostly do nothing jobs for payback, but nothing of substance.

You're full of it, as usual. Federal Judges are "do nothing" positions? Cabinet members are "do nothing" positions?

Even if they were "do nothing" positions as you falsely claim, I asked him very specifically if he's saying Bush appointed more minorities than Clinton and he sais yes, which is a lie.

but what are you saying about Clinton? Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton? ---davad Yes, I am.

He is not American, and therefore does not have to worry about Rostenkowski and Trafficant.

There's a little dust on those names, can't you come up with anyone recently?

You're full of it, as usual. Federal Judges are "do nothing" positions? Cabinet members are "do nothing" positions?

Ok, so tell us how many judges and Cabinet positions, not any positions.  Then do a comparison.  Please link to sources.  The undersecretary for underwear may be a nice plkum job, but hardly influential.

There's a little dust on those names, can't you come up with anyone recently?

Oh, you mean like Harry Reid?  Hillary Clinton?  Those names?

Ok, so tell us how many judges and Cabinet positions, not any positions. Then do a comparison. Please link to sources. The undersecretary for underwear may be a nice plkum job, but hardly influential.

I already gave you links for all that.

Oh, you mean like Harry Reid? Hillary Clinton? Those names?

How about you give some links to back up your claims for once. Links that show Hillary and Reid were censured, penalized, convicted, or found guilty of anything?

How about you give some links to back up your claims for once. Links that show Hillary and Reid were censured, penalized, convicted, or found guilty of anything?

As soon as you show me the same for Delay, or show me where Abramoff was elected to the house.

I never said Abramoff was elected to anything. Although he did hold a position in Bush's transition team.

Here's Delay's ethics violations;

On September 30, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay because he "offered to endorse Representative [Nick] Smith's son in exchange for Representative Smith's vote in favor of the Medicare bill." [48]

On October 6, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay on two counts. The first count stated that DeLay "created the appearance that donors were being provided with special access to Representative DeLay regarding the then-pending energy legislation." The second count said that DeLay "used federal resources in a political issue" by asking the Federal Aviation Administration and Justice Department to help track Texas legislators during the battle over Texas redistricting.[49] At the time of the latter admonishment, the House Ethics committee deferred action on another count related to fundraising while that matter was subject to state criminal action. That state investigation eventually led to the felony indictment on September 28, 2005.Link

How about you give some links to back up your claims for once. Links that show Hillary and Reid were censured, penalized, convicted, or found guilty of anything?

Here's Delay's ethics violations;

You seem to have a problem with your own post.  Now show me from your first one where Delay is guilty of any of your stated criteria.

It was a joke. You know DeLay, Abramhoff, Cunningham...House Rules.

I never said Abramoff was elected to anything. Although he did hold a position in Bush's transition team.

Now show me how Abramoff (elected or not) is violating House rules.  You brought him into it, not I.

You seem to have a problem with your own post. Now show me from your first one where Delay is guilty of any of your stated criteria.

It's right there...try reading.

You have problems with your own posts.

As soon as you show me the same for Delay, or show me where Abramoff was elected to the house.

notice the word or

Now show me how Abramoff (elected or not) is violating House rules. You brought him into it, not I.

For one, you're making way too much of something I clearly said was a joke. But if you want to get all technical, I never explicitly said in that post that Abramoff violated anything. Although the case could easily be made that he facilitated people to break house rules.

It's right there...try reading. You have problems with your own posts.

You still have not shown me either.  So the OR is appropriate.  Now you want to show me either or?

Although the case could easily be made that he facilitated people to break house rules.

As I guess the case could be made for Reid and Clinton as well.  You still have failed to show either or.

You still have not shown me either. So the OR is appropriate. Now you want to show me either or?

Are you at work? Do they let you do drugs at work or something? Is that why you cannot read what I posted about Delay? The Ethics committee found him guilty of violations.

Now show me where that's happened with Clinton and/or Reid.

No more 5 points a comment for you until you show evidence of Reid and/or Clinton being found guilty of anything.

On October 6, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay on two counts

On September 30, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay because he "offered to endorse Representative [Nick] Smith's son in exchange for Representative Smith's vote in favor of the Medicare bill." [48]

Are you at work? Do they let you do drugs at work or something? Is that why you cannot read what I posted about Delay? The Ethics committee found him guilty of violations.

No, they cannot find him guilty.  They admonished him for the appearance of imporpriety.  Now do you want to try again? (an admonishment is not a censure either, nor is it guilt).

Gene Nash---I stand corrected. Sorry.

I didn't say anything about past presidents did I? When are you going to deal with the present day and stop relying on the past? The issue is appointees of minorities....Bush VS. Clinton.

---davad

Firstly, "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it". Pick up a history book; preferably one that goes back further than 1992. I was simply making the point that Republicans, traditionally, have done much, much more for minorities than Democrats have ever attempted.

I want you to tell me how many important, policy-making positions Clinton filled with blacks and women, not just peripheral ones. I don't give a rat's behind who the kitchen staff was or who made copies or ran to get his coffee.

The snapshot does confirm Bush's claim that he has assembled the most diverse cabinet and top-level officials requiring Senate approval of any Republican president, creating a profile that nears the record-setting diversity of Clinton.

---davad text quote

The key phrase is "requiring Senate approval". "Diversity" doesn't mean a thing.
For my part, it's just a job that happens to be in the White House, unless you need to be approved by the Legislative. I work with women and black people, too, after all.

And Delay has yet to be convicted of anything. Censured is one thing, convicted is another. If they all took hits for "ethics violations" nobody'd be running the country.
Also, when the Abramoff thing hits the fan and it starts sticking to more and more Dems, too, I bet it'll cool off real quick.

Paige's 18-member top-level team -- deputy secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretaries -- was quite diverse. A third were minorities and more than half women. Less than a quarter were white men. But of his 22 senior executives -- chiefs of staff, deputy assistant secretaries and advisers -- only three, or 14 percent, were minorities and just a third women. And 60 percent were white men.

---text quote

+LOL+ Well, since he was black, having white men in the key positions SHOULD qualify as diversity.

---davad Firstly, "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it". Pick up a history book; preferably one that goes back further than 1992. I was simply making the point that Republicans, traditionally, have done much, much more for minorities than Democrats have ever attempted. I want you to tell me how many important, policy-making positions Clinton filled with blacks and women, not just peripheral ones. I don't give a rat's behind who the kitchen staff was or who made copies or ran to get his coffee.

The part of your reply that strikes me the most is the part I underlined. Is it your sunconcious telling you that minorites are only good for working in the kitchen, making copies, and getting coffee?


So...in your world....

Secretary of Commerce(Black Man) is like working in the kitchen?Link

Attorney General(Woman) is akin to making coffee? Link

Scretary of Transportation(Asian Man) is like being an asian chauffeur?Link

Secretary of Labor (Black Woman)is like a housekeeper maybe? Link

Secretary of Health & Human Services(Woman) is kinda like...I dunno but I'm sure you could come up with some demeaning task she probably did. Link

Sec of Housing & Urban Development.(Hispanic Man) Link

Another Sec of Transportation.(Hispanic Man) Link Also served as Sec. of Energy

Secretary of Energy.(Black Woman)Link

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.(Black Man)Link

Surgeon General.(Black Woman)Link


It's sad that you think so little of Cabinet positions to liken them to getting coffee, working in the kitchen, and making copies.

The fact is that the past is the past. Yes, we can learn from it...and Democrats have. Go out on the street and ask 10 black people who they think represents their best interest. Please don't go to the tired excuse that the liberals and the media have duped them. That only insults them and makes them feel that you think they're too dumb to know what's best for them.

Censured is one thing, convicted is another

Admonished is not censured either.  Davad lost, but like a sore loser, he cant give up the bone.

Attorney General(Woman) is akin to making coffee? Link

Get off that kick!  Women are not minorities and not by and in of them selves another race!  You stretch too far, and I noticed how you avoided the issue as well.

Ok, You carry Janet Reno's Banner!  Someone has to and as I understand it, even Hillary does not want to touch her!

lame again davad!  Very lame!  Are you going to pull another disappearing act when asked to produce?

Tis ok.  I understand that is a liberal thing.

First of all davad, you're purposely confusing things. Please stop it.
All I meant was that Bush gave more ~~very important~~ posts to minorities than Clinton, which is true.
I really don't care who was doing the little stuff for him (of which, by the by, minorites were well included; the head of the kitchen staff was, indeed, a black woman. I'm sure he gets "diversity points" from you for this that Bush wouldn't get for having two black SoS, for example. They're just tokens, right? Uncle Toms?).

And Doc is right.....women don't count, no matter how hard you push. There are more women in the world than men; that makes them a majority.

Like a true liberal, though, you stuff words in people's mouths that you know you can refute. Please stop.

Like a true liberal, though, you stuff words in people's mouths that you know you can refute.

Very astute!  I will have to give you a cookie tomorrow.  I used all mine on Doc Miler!

Dr. Guy, if you really believe that Abramoff didn't break any House rules, than what's all the fuss about? Why are we re-writing lobbying rules?

Are you aware of the ethics rules surrounding lobbyist activities on the Hill? Abramoff broke every last one of them, and did so blatantly. He's making life miserable for many people in DC--simply because he did not think that he had to play by the same rules as everyone else.