Reply With Quote
But, but, but, I read it on Fox News... it must be true!
LOL the move. The move amounts to a statement which pretty much changes nothing other than try to calm down the Black Congressional Caucus.
"Hey guys, I'm going to work closely with the department thats under me to do this job. Have a Nice day"
"ZOMG YOU'RE YOU'RE MAKING THE CENSUS POLITICAL! TOM DELAY!! TOM DELAY!!!"
But, but, but, I read it on Fox News... it must be true!
Exactly he's ing re ed. I'm not even sure he's seem the statement he's so up in arms about.
Timeline
1. Gregg gets nominated
2. Black Congresspeople say "OMG HE'S NOT GOING TO COUNT BLACKS"
3. Obama says "I'M BLACK AND I'M GOING TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THEM"
4. GOP Congerss "ZOMG POLITICS!"
5. Gregg "I NEED TO SAVE FACE!! CENSUS!!!"
6. Doobs "ZOMG DON'T COUNT PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! DELAY!!!"
You know what I mean. I was speaking figuratively about it being in the White House. I know it isn't physically or formally moving into the White House. Obama seems to want more control over the Census Bureau, and I think it's for purely political reasons.
I mentioned Tom DeLay for a reason. I personally don't know why Obama wants control over the Census. If there is a legitimate reason, I would like to know. Seriously, why does he care about the Census Bureau reporting directly to him (and Rahm Emanuel)? Could it be that 2010 is just around the corner? Perhaps it has something to do with redistricting. That's my concern.
Chicago politics.
For something that wasn't illegal, the administration officials involved are awfully tight-lipped about it.
It's kind of hard to tell if it was or wasn't illegal because there was such stone-walling on the part of the Bush administration about it.
So you don't know why, but Chicago politics!
Just stop right there. Do you know why no one claimed it was illegal? BECAUSE IT WASN'T.
It was still ty, however.
Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this statement.
I think I just explained my concern to you. Big kids can read.
What the are you talking about?
So you don't know whats going on? Well thats a surprise Doobs. I mean really. Pretty hard to get more control over a department you fully control.
Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Dept.
WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.
Times Topics: U.S. AttorneysThe blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/wa...d-justice.html
Full text available:The do entary evidence and witness interviews also support
the conclusion that two members of the 2006 Screening Committee,
Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston, took political or ideological
affiliations into account in deselecting candidates in violation of
Department policy and federal law. For example, the evidence showed
that McDonald wrote disparaging statements about candidates’ liberal
and Democratic Party affiliations on the applications she reviewed and
that she voted to deselect candidates on that basis.
We also found that Elston, the head of the 2006 Committee,
failed to take appropriate action when he learned that McDonald was
routinely deselecting candidates on the basis of what she perceived to
be the candidates’ liberal affiliations. The evidence also showed that
Elston himself deselected some candidates – and allowed the
deselection of others – based on impermissible considerations. Despite
his initial denial in our interview that he did not consider such
inappropriate factors, he later admitted in the interview that he may
have deselected candidates in a few instances due to their affiliation
with certain causes. In addition, Elston was unable to give a credible
reason as to why specific highly qualified candidates with liberal or
Democratic credentials were deselected.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf
-------------------
Just in case you missed it the first time. This is above and beyond the attorney firings.
Chicago politics!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fed...l?hpid=topnewsThe White House announced its decision last week, as minority groups raised concerns about Gregg’s past opposition to Census funding. Obama administration staffers said the decision was based in part on historical precedence during the Clinton administration.
“As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the Census Director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the President’s desk," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a written statement.
"This administration has not proposed removing the Census from the Department of Commerce and the same Congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority.”
Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.
Your claim, your burden of proof. I want to see what statement/plan from the Obama administration you base this statement on.
I don't know what you want from me. All I said was that Obama wants more control over Census, and that I was speaking figuratively about the Census moving to the White House.
So I have the temerity to ask questions about Obama's decisions, and you want to jump all over me? How about actually discussing why he wants to do what he's doing?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html
Now, please explain to me a good reason for Obama's plan to have the Census Bureau report directly to him. I really just want to know, but my su ion, my concern, is that he's playing politics with the census.
That's all.
Read it again. My concern is a DeLay-style gerrymander. What is your opinion? Why do you think Obama is doing this? I would really like to know.
FAIL.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED PAGE, LAST TIME I CHECKED, WAS NOT PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
I read the article, and nowhere in that article did they attribute any quote to the white house either. I would accept a quote in that article if they actually had bothered to tell me what they based THEIR statements and analysis on.
Please provide a source statement from the White House that supports this.
Your claim, your burden of proof. I want to see what statement/plan from the Obama administration you base this statement on.
Since districts are drawn by state legislatures, that won't be a problem.Seems like there were already a lot of new ideas in the pipeline for the census regarding techniques and technology, and I'm sure the Obama administration has even more. Is it a bad thing for a president to want to know what's going on with the census?What is your opinion? Why do you think Obama is doing this? I would really like to know.
I didn't see any quote marks or attribution to what was actually said.
Keep digging cool-aid boy, because unless you can show that your statement is based on what the White House actually said or proposed, and not on what Fox News told you to believe, you don't get to claim this.
It is if that president is a Democrat, apparently.
I still don't know what you want from me. What claim do I need to prove?
By definition, Manny.
And this isn't a "Woe is the Rich Guy" argument - not talking class warfare, here.
Take from one person, give to another = transfer.
As opposed to production.
The US lost 600,000 jobs last month.
How are you instantly going replace those jobs?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
