Very nice.

Very nice.

Yea, nice of Clarence to make it easier for his wife to cash in.

Conflict of interest for Thomas? Nahhh.

Caesar's wife and all........

I love it. This is the raison-du-jour that will drive the libbies out of their minds, pending the next Sarah Palin thread.

Real predictable, these libtards. Put Clarence Thomas/Tea Parties/White Woman together and they'll be foaming at the mouth in no time flat.

I love it. This is the raison-du-jour that will drive the libbies out of their minds, pending the next Sarah Palin thread.

Real predictable, these libtards. Put Clarence Thomas/Tea Parties/White Woman together and they'll be foaming at the mouth in no time flat.

#4 | Posted by rightisright

It destroys their definition of how the world should be---since this is not in line with how they want to control it---their eyes are probably crossing right now and they're probably running to their respective bathrooms to have a dump.

It cracks me up that Virginia Thomas describes herself as "an ordinary citizen from Omaha." She's the wife of a Supreme Court justice former government lawyer and Heritage think tank consultant. She has worked in government or think tank jobs inside the Beltway for the past 22-plus years and now she's becoming a fat-cat lobbyist. That's hardly ordinary.

This is the raison-du-jour that will drive the libbies out of their minds...

#4 | Posted by rightisright

while connies will applaud the savvy financial move by the Thomas family, thinly disguised as public service.

Uh huh. But when unions and Hollywood and investment banks open up their wallet to elect Democrats, that doesn't seem to bother you.

If you people had read the article, you would see that it makes reference to a judge in Penn (i believe) that is married to a governor. Now, as the governor is a dem, I am sure it will somehow be much worse here.

After all, she wants to get people elected and has to worry about donations. He gets donations directly and signs laws that might create a direct conflict.

that doesn't seem to bother you.

Of course it bothers me.

Why do often pubbies try to justify their indiscretions by comparative behavior? Two wrongs don't make a right.

pubbies often

Clarence Thomas: Worst SC Justice ever. Useless.

Clarence Thomas: Worst SC Justice ever. Useless.

#12 | Posted by americanunity

Correction: less politically correct SC Justice ever.

Libbies get all kind of upset when blacks don't stay on the plantation, along with the 93% of the straight-ticket Dem-voting Obama fan club. The remaining 7% are just racists, Along with the majority of Americans these days, apparently.

Good strategy for the Thomases, cash in before even considering retirement. What could make Americans respect our justice system more than SC justices being married to lobbyists? This situation will have some conservatives questioning it right along with us liberals. Justice Thomas's ability to claim that he is truely an impartial judge of important matters which often are decided along left/right, liberal/conservative lines is greatly reduced.
The more I think about it the more I think this whole situation is so obviously out of step with the duties of the SC that it is questionable if Justice Thomas can withstand the public outcry which could come his way. Should come his way.

"Libbies get all kind of upset when blacks don't stay on the plantation,"

You mean like when they get elected president?
We don't like it????

Riiiiight.
We weren't out marching around in "tea parties" immediately after we elected our first black president, screaming "I want my country back!!!"
I wonder sometimes when they say they want their country back if they mean like 2007 or like 1857.

Clarence Thomas: Worst SC Justice ever. Useless.

#12 | Posted by americanunity

(Jealous cuz a dem didn't appoint a black man to the SC.)

And they cock blocked the right from appointing a Latino as well.

Dems: trying to save all the gravy for themselves.

MATSOP

Thomas has been completely uninvolved in arguments before the court.

His wife going political is unprecedented in the history of the SCOTUS.

We weren't out marching around in "tea parties" immediately after we elected our first black president, screaming "I want my country back!!!"
I wonder sometimes when they say they want their country back if they mean like 2007 or like 1857.

#16 | Posted by danni
* * * * *

Thanks for making my point for me. It isn't possible that opposition to Obama could be because of the multi trillion dollar bailouts to Wall Street, or to GM, or this abortion of a health care bill that everyone hates, or the most incompetent Treasury and Fed picks in history.

Nah. It's because he's black.

22%.

...an ordinary citizen from...

That's all a candidate has to say to get Republican backing.

#16 & #19

One strawman argument battling it out with another, stomping the truth down beneath the ground. Cute.

One could almost think that was coordinated.

Oh that's great, the left is up in arms. The same dudes who cheer for HRC to be a SCJ. No problems for you there heh?

Wow, good for her.

Geez, AmericanUnity, didn't realize speaking out to your government was a political move.

All those letters I've sent over the years to my congress person D and R were political moves on my part? Tea Party goers are just collectively doing the same thing as a group, are they not?

Uffda

--Path~

Hmmm. Is it because she is a repub woman and should be home barefoot and pregnant? Oops, didn't meant to offend the left, recovering from her 19th abortion?

Given the demographics of the Tea Partiers, she'll be greated with open arms... Until she brings her husband...

Given the demographics of liberals, he'd be greeted with open arms. Until he voiced an opinion.

Given the demographics of liberals, he'd be greeted with open arms. Until he voiced an opinion.

#26 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-03-14 05:52 PM

We don't judge a man on the color of his skin but the content of his character. You do just the opposite.

But it'd be NO PROBLEM for the dr left.... to have HRC as a SJC.

Wife of the former president, NO PROBLEM! Lobby related...big problem? Splain that to us!

Is she on the SCOTUS? No.

Hmmm. Is it because she is a repub woman and should be home barefoot and pregnant? Oops, didn't meant to offend the left, recovering from her 19th abortion?

#24 | Posted by 1libertarian

What are you? About 15?

Give us examples of other SCOTUS judges in history whose wives became political activists. How about one.

Thought you were a "Libertarian". Sure you are.

Wife of the former president, NO PROBLEM! Lobby related...big problem? Splain that to us!

#28 | Posted by DavetheWave

HRC is not a justice. Even if she were, since you brought it up, YOU should explain how that's a conflict.

The problem with Mrs. Thomas being a lobbyist is already painfully obvious. By her design, she and her husband are very likely to benefit directly from one of her husbands decisions. Surely you're not that naive.

#23 | Posted by path at 2010-03-14 05:39 PM

Is your spouse a supposedly unbiased Justice of the Supreme Court of The United States?

It destroys their definition of how the world should be---

Yeah, how dare we want an unpoliticized and independent SCOTUS.

"that plans to exploit the Citizens United decision to raise and spend money "

No conflict there, eh Mr. Justice?

As long as the judge recuses himself from cases involving the group or its donors, what's the big deal? This is hardly uncommon.

Bill Clinton was Attorney General, then Governor, when HRC was a bigwig in a Little Rock law firm that argued cases before the courts, AND was politically active. Ed Rendell in PA is a governor, married to a federal judge. More recently, Obama just handed a judgeship to the brother of a guy who just happens to be a "maybe" vote on his big healthcare bill.

No--What has the libbies upset here is that the justice is Clarence Thomas, and his wife is a conservative.

No SCOTUS Justice's spouse should be an active lobbyist for one particular political point of view.

The SCOTUS is the only supposedly non-political body in our three branches of government.

Thomas, a former attorney for Monsanto that is driving independent farmers out of business worldwide, by monopolizing seed production. When our nation was founded life was explicitly excluded from patent law. Thomas should have recussed himself from Monsanto's bid to patent genetic seed code, but he didn't. Thus Monsanto has claimed ownership for every windblown seed they've patented around the world, some of which were used by East Indian farmers free for thousands of years. Hundreds of thousands of the East Indian farmers have committed suicide. Millions of Mexican farmers have been driven off their farms, triggering an Immigration crisis in this country. Thomas didn't respect Democracy in 2000 either. This country's most powerful Uncle Tom has played a key role in shifting the balance of power to Rethuglican's and Corporations. This phoney Conservatism wraps itself in the Constitution and Christianity while violating their underlying principals. They stand for big money and against the little guy, exactly what our founding fathers tried to protect us all from. Apparently his wife is of the same school.

Poor AU-hole, same ignorant post on every thread.

Thought you were a "Libertarian". Sure you are.

#30 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Worthless piece of shit, why do you always make the same attack and then never, ever defend your positions.

Give us examples of other SCOTUS judges in history whose wives became political activists. How about one.

As I would HOPE you are aware, times change. Until recently, women stayed home and raised the children, etc. The fact that it hasn't happened before is no reason to say it can't happen NOW. Using that fucked up logic, we would never have a first woman anything, or a first black anything... they had never done it in the past, so they are forever barred from it.

But a close analogy would be Mr. Rendell (gov of Penn) and his wife Marjorie O. Rendell, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (3rd circuit just happens to be Penn).

So, he pushes laws through and, if they are challenged, his wife would be one of the people that decides if the laws are valid. Your right, no possible conflict there. The fact that some union or corp who has a case in front of his wife could make a donation to his reelection campaign would NEVER enter the minds of anyone on the left... well, not until someone on the right who is married to a judge gets politically active. Then watch the shit hit the fan.

So, just to make you we know exactly how partisan a shitstain you are... you would be against Ms. Rendell being considered for a promotion to th the USSC? Qualifications be damned, her spouse is politically active. Right?

RiR, you stole my thunder

No SCOTUS Justice's spouse should be an active lobbyist for one particular political point of view.

The SCOTUS is the only supposedly non-political body in our three branches of government.

#35 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

So would you extend that to other family members? Obama promotes a brother, the congress person has to drop out? If Ms. Rendell is promoted, does the govt have to quit?

#37 | Posted by 1teabagitarian

Do you understand English? Do you understand what the acrynom 'SCOTUS' stands for?

No, you don't. No better than you understand any other subject that involves thought or nuance.

Virginia Thomas has established a new job for herself in which she will profit directly -- and handsomely -- from a decision made by her husband on the Supreme Court.

That's incredibly unseemly and makes Justice Thomas look bad. Right-wingers who love the guy should be the biggest critics of her judgment.

Right-wingers who love the guy should be the biggest critics of her judgment.

But, they won't.

Heck, after being gung ho supporters of the worst President in over 100 years all they can do is bash the man left to clean up his messes.

(and whine whenever Bush's name is brought up for context and facts)

#37 | Posted by 1TEABAGITARIAN|Flag: DOES NOT UNDERSTAND difference between SCOTUS and local or district courts.

Do you understand English? Do you understand what the acrynom 'SCOTUS' stands for?

No, you don't. No better than you understand any other subject that involves thought or nuance.

#40 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Poor AU-hole, has no defense of a gov of Penn having a wife that is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Penn.

This is a DIRECT conflict. People could give him money to influence her decisions, and legislation that he pushes through would be upheld or overturned in part by her decisions. This is a MUCH more troubling potential breach. Add to that the History of Hilly both in AR and in her role in the first govt attempted takeover of healthcare (which the lefties also tend to ignore).

But OMG, Ms Thomas' organization is going to "issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election". Just like any other citizen is allowed to do. She will not be directly writing law that her husband would rule on.

This is a lot of pants pissing by libbies. BTW, Ms. Rendell is 1 step lower than the SCOTUS. And the gov of penn is more than 1 step up from a political organizer (except for Obama).

1TEABAGITARIAN doesn't comprehend the SCOTUS as the final word on the law in the land, or the difference between an appellate court or the SCOTUS.

"Hey, wives of Supreme Court Justices should be allowed to lobby. Especially since she's now allowed to based on the ruling recently handed down by her husband to allow her to. It's all good."

- 1TEABAGITARIAN

AU will never, EVER criticize a Democrat. So the idea of tossing counter-examples his way of Dems doing the same thing is useless.

Give him credit for partisan loyalty, if nothing else.

I will when they do something certifiably wrong.

But, moonbat conspiracy theories by right wingers are .. well certifiable.

"Give him credit for partisan loyalty, if nothing else.

#48 | Posted by rightisright"

Beats being in the bag for rapists and murderers and claiming to be "non-partisan"

Conservatives are just beyond the pale.

Man...what the hell is wrong with you guys?

... doesn't comprehend the SCOTUS as the final word on the law in the land, or the difference between an appellate court or the SCOTUS.

#46 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Poor partisan AU-hole. I understand the difference, but perhaps you don't. There are how many decisions that the appellate court looks at each year? And there are 12 appellate courts, as well as military courts that are under the USSC. So, if the USSC doesn't review and overturn the decision, it because case law.

In this case, someone (lets call them an evil corp, to easy your few remaining brain cells)... and they donate some HUGE amount of money to the gov in exchange for a law that favors them. I know, no corp would be so evil... but lets play along...

Then, after he takes his bribe, the law is challenged. After it goes through the appeals process, it winds up in his wife's lap. She sides with hubby (and they get another campaign contribution). Now, unless the USSC decides to hear the case, it stands.

And you never said what should happen if the little wiffie was promoted? Would hubby have to step down?

Why is it that you hyper-partisan pot-filled mind can invision someone like Thomas and his wife gaming the system, but can't see the same potential in the current dem setup? Why did you not see the real world bullshit that the clits pulled in AR, etc. Its called partisan blinders.

So, you think a corporation wouldn't contact the Justice Dept. if they suspected wrongdoing? You're pulling some crap off a right wing website.

Look up the word 'recuse'. It's of the essence to the phony baloney conspiracy you just looked up.

You made absolutely no sense. You should also get spell check.

So, you think a corporation wouldn't contact the Justice Dept. if they suspected wrongdoing? You're pulling some crap off a right wing website.

Look up the word 'recuse'. It's of the essence to the phony baloney conspiracy you just looked up.

You made absolutely no sense. You should also get spell check.

#53 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

First, you need to pull your head out of the bong long enought to get some air... your brain cells are baked. I was making THE EXACT SAME argument that you were, a conflict of interests. However, while my conflict is hypothetical, the possibilty does exist. All you have is contempt for a black judge that is a repub.

Both your arguments would also work AGAINST the fear you have for Ms. Thomas' organization. If something was wrong, don't you think the lefties would go running to justice? Course, when your party holds the house and senate and the pres, guess there isn't much chance of a right-winger getting justice. Can we say black panthers with billy clubs at a polling place, simply dropped by the thug-n-chief's so-called justice dept?

And attacking my spelling? Isn't that the final rung in the 'I have no fucking ideas' path?

Tell you what, I will look for a spell check routine, you look for a way to get some oxygen to your pot-filled cells.

the worst President in over 100 years

#42 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

R.S. Owens and Co are gold plating a tin statue for Dear Leader as I type this.

#52 | Posted by 1libertarian

Tarian,

AU is a lazy political hack. He will never read you links nor will he ever know anything he's talking about.

And attacking my spelling?
#54 | Posted by 1libertarian

He will do this when he realizes that he's wrong. You can even purposely missspell a word -- he's predictable.

1Hit_the_Bong_arian is a douchebag and a fool.

that doesn't seem to bother you.
Of course it bothers me.
Why do often pubbies try to justify their indiscretions by comparative behavior? Two wrongs don't make a right.

#10 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

The right ALWAYS makes the comparative to justify shitty behavior. The shitty behavior was never condoned or endorsed by the left/middle but the inference is the left/middle lets it slide so its OK to be an asshole and scumbag.

No its not OK ever. It is not condoned. Stop masturbating to the screen about how it is supposedly going to drive us loony. You fuckers are insane..

EDDIE

I post links to facts, like when and where this massive national debt came from. You can't handle the truth? So, what you right wingers do is whine 'get out of the past!' or 'all you do is talk about Bush'. Well, guess what, Sherlock, the national debt was $5 Trillion when he took office and $12 Trillion when he left. Ya, I'm partisan: I partisan against batshit crazy right wing pukes who've taken over the GOP and robbed America of it's treasure.

I used to respect a number of Republicans. No more. The Republican Party's politicians in D.C. are nut cases who could care less for the middle class. What more proof do you need than the last 15 years?

When given the choice of middle class tax cuts or another for the wealthiest, they didn't choose the middle class - the backbone of this country.

AU-hole, your are spewing shit as normal.

OK, spending under the repubs was HORRIBLE... but your guy is pushing us over the cliff even faster.

While it might be only because there is a crazy leftist loon in the WH and the same socialist are running amok in both the house and senate, I welcome anyone who is trying to put the breaks on this idiocy.

That you want to say 'ebil republicans' while your guys had congress for the last couple of year, and have had a super majority for the last year and have done NOT ONE GOD DAMN THING to make the spending less.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

Should we take bets on which party will be in charge when the final collapse happens? And does it fucking matter? They are both evil.

From the article--

The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses' political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor.

Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary's Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband's political office, she said.

Law professor Gillers said that Justice Thomas, too, should be on alert for possible conflicts, particularly those involving donors to his wife's nonprofit.

"There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim," he said.

Justice Thomas would be required to be aware of such contributions, Gillers said, adding that he believes Thomas should then disclose those facts and allow parties in the case to argue for recusal.

But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. He could not be reached for comment.

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors.

Because of a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the group may also spend corporate money freely to advocate for or against candidates for office.

---

No doubt folks will be careful. Thomas would not want the appearance of a conflict.

The Rendells seem to have kept their p's and q's together as well.

There was a big brouhaha over Hillary getting the SoS job. So far so good--right?

So Thomas will have to separate himself from his wife's political activities.

Just like Judge Rendell separates herself from her husbands polictical activities.

the national debt was $5 Trillion when he took office and $12 Trillion when he left

What happened?

I thought there was a surplus left by Clinton??

So you are claiming the debt was 12T when Obama started--what is it now??

"I thought there was a surplus left by Clinton??"

Murphy, are you actually that much of a moron not to know the difference between annual debt and accumulated debt?

And I am being fecticious cupcake. ;o)

Here is a quick overview. [my 2 cents]

Libs give credit to Clinton, repubs give credit to the Newt Revolution of 94. After 94, the budgets started moving towards alignment. The project budgets show that, all the indicators being static, we would show a surplus. However, as early as the last quarter of Clinton, those projections were shown to be ... optimistic. One of the reasons that Al Whore didn't run on the Clinton numbers is that they didn't want the numbers examined. Bush inherited a slight recession, then 9-11 happened, and the war on terrorims (hate that name -- not accurate). This was fought in both Iraqi (who was a sponsor of terrorism worldwide, both training and funding) and Afgahnistan where the terrorist leadership had free reign.

Just like in WWII, when we were attacked by Japan and then went to war first against Germany, it was decided that Iraqi was the biggest threat. This may have been a mistake (I don't have access to all the info, and I don't believe anyone else on here does).

Still, the cost of prosecuting 2 wars, and the replacement cost of bombs and missles and tanks, fuel, etc. has ran up an even larger deficit.

Now, Obamanation gets into congress, and the spending doesn't improve. In fact, it gets worse. Then Obamanation gets elected to be pres, and the spending goes even worse. In his defense, there was a housing and stock crash [which I believe was handled about a poorly as it could possibly be done], but that has further increased spending. Now, add to that the run away spending when congress and the WH is ran by the same party and there are almost no opposition, and you get to the currentl mess.

Expect, if the repubs manage to make sweeping changes in the house and/or senate, that spending will go back to something closer to the '94 Newt budgets. Moving towards balanced. If there are any repubs in office that truely believe in the constitution, which I doubt some days.

OK, spending under the repubs was HORRIBLE... but your guy is pushing us over the cliff even faster.

With well over a TRILLION dollars a YEAR in unfunded liabilities left by the GOP/Bush legacy of 2001-2009 what do you expect? Surpluses? Get a grip on reality.

Libs give credit to Clinton, repubs give credit to the Newt Revolution of 94--liber

Pretty good summation there.

And both sides deserve credit--as one would not have been able to do it without the other.

I believe the repubs learned their lesson about spending and the more fiscal ones are in charge of the party on the Hill.

We shall see --said the Zen Master..

Expect, if the repubs manage to make sweeping changes in the house and/or senate, that spending will go back to something closer to the '94 Newt budgets. Moving towards balanced.

1TEABAGITARIAN

Those were CLINTON's budgets.

Proof? When W entered the White House we saw the largest deficits in U.S. history and added $7 Trillion to the national debt that could have been PAID OFF by last year - saving $700 Billion a year in debt service payments alone. No talk about balanced anything. Just borrow it from China and Saudi Arabia

No arguement from me that Bush and the congress overspent--it was horrible.

I sent emails to no avail.

The repubs got spanked in 2006 and 2008 for their spending mainly and the corruption. Rightly so--that's the only way to learn sometimes.

But the dems and Obama are doing far worse--with no end in sight because not only do they love to spend money they have to print or borrow--they love to tax the crap out of anything that moves--or doesn't move.

Obama's budget is out of this world obscene at 3.5 billion.

wtph!!

No, budgets start in the HOUSE, they were Newt's budgets.

And they were projected to pay off, if the rosy economy of '94 and '95 had continued, which they didn't, even before 911.

Amazing how the losses of 911 are ignored, but the stock market bubble is all we ever hear about why Obamanation has made things worse.

Awesome possum! Can't wait to meet her sometime!

The budget does start in the House.

But the POTUS has to sign it.

Awesome possum!

lol

#17 | POSTED BY OUR_ZERO
"Jealous cuz a dem didn't appoint a black man to the SC."

That would be Thurgood Marshall.

Honestly, I don't have any real problem with this.

Sure, it may be "unseemly" on the surface, or "unprecedented" for the spouse of a SC justice, but there's nothing ethically wrong with it.
She shouldn't be prevented from doing what she's doing just because she's married to Clarence Thomas.

And while it may be natural to link her starting this PAC with the CU decision, I think it's the "wrong tree".
One can't hold Thomas alone responsible for the CU decision.
Let's face it, in cases that have clear-cut con/lib sides, the decision is most likely going to be 5-4, number five being Kennedy, whichever way he decides.

Worst-case scenario, Thomas may have to recuse himself on a case connected with his wife's political actions.

As we all know, TOM, the appearance of impropriety caries equal weight in the court of public opinion.

I'll grant you that, but that's more the public's problem.
Public opinion ultimately has no effect on Clarence Thomas being in office, regardless of the appearance of impropriety.
For me, though, thus far, no real impropriety has made an appearance.
It's hardly pretty, by any means, but it's not ugly.
I'm trying to look at it from outside the con/lib fishbowl, as it were.

Worst-case scenario, Thomas may have to recuse himself on a case connected with his wife's political actions.

So if a lawsuit comes up challenging Citizens United, Thomas will recuse himself?

Have to be a more direct connection than that.

Not a big deal. We'll know if there's a conflict of interest on Thomas' part.

He'll ask a question.

I think it's great what he's doing. The lynch mob put together by the lefties was so despicable, I can't blame him one bit. The liberals say he's taking it personally, and that he has an axe to grind against them. And to the extent that's true, it's wholly their fault.

He'll doubtless recuse himself in the event a conflict of interest arises in a case brought before the court. But if the libbies want to politicize the court the way they have since that total POS starting "borking" everyone, then it's time conservatives started playing their game too.

Herr Adolf Bush started this spending...

Iraq war-This, a war against untrained, teenage Muslim kids and old men, using 20 year old Soviet weapons? Talk about fraud, abuse and waste...

"Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through Sept 2010.

U.S. 2009 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $7.3 billion as of Oct 2009

U.S. 2008 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion

U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008)

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion

Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (The Nation/New York Times)"

Oh-not to forget the 2008 $700billion dollar Bush Bank Bailout. Where were the teabaggers then?

Hypocrites and assholes...

Seems like the Republican Tea Fart fringe lunatics only count Obama's one year tenure.

Gee, a Dick Armey staffer involved in Tea Parties? Who'd a thunk it?

I guess she has the right, but the appearance of conflict for a SC Justice with a highly partisan political wife will be nearly unavoidable.

I'm sure Clarence is very upset about it, lol.

On second thought, she seems about as partisan as he always has....

OOPS

Story already on front page.... drat that Rogers Cadenhead!

Obama's own budgets have him running deficits averaging a trillion dollars a year for the next ten. And the douchebags that voted for the big "Bush Bank Bailouts" were Democrats--the majority of Republicans voted no, along with all the small-government conservatives.

Teabaggers. Funny word. I'll assume in this instance you're talking about us small-government types, and not the pole-munching homos that tend to vote libbie.

Obama's own budgets have him running deficits averaging a trillion dollars a year for the next ten.

What a coincidence!

1 Trillion dollars happens to be less than the unfunded liabilities left on the administration's doorstep January 20th, 2009 by the previous administration.

(per year)

= jizz all over yourself

Cookfish's homoerotic fantasies know no borders.....

I know. Obama's such a genius, that all he can do is take Bush's lousy numbers, and make them worse.

Maybe I'll send my budget up to him and his tax-dodgin' Treasury Secretary. You know, to see if he has any advice for me. I'm plugging along okay, but with their help, maybe I can be bankrupt soon.

He has higher approval than Reagan did at this point in his Presidency. The rest of your post is supposition.

Why don't you ever mention the trillion dollars+ per year in unfunded liabilities left on the doorstep of the WH by the previous administration? You pretend the trillion+ annual deficits magically appeared at 12 noon, January 20th, 2009.

re: You pretend the trillion+ annual deficits magically appeared at 12 noon, January 20th, 2009.

#88 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-15 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Without that willfully ignorant pretense, their argument is hypocritical at best, but most likely just nonsense composed of a mosaic of inchoate fear. I remember Glenn Beck whining that the bailout fund wasn't large enough, but that was before Obama won the election...

re: Obama's own budgets have him running deficits averaging a trillion dollars a year for the next ten. And the douchebags that voted for the big "Bush Bank Bailouts" were Democrats--the majority of Republicans voted no, along with all the small-government conservatives.

#84 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-03-15 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Name a few Republicans who voted against it while Bush was still President and was attempting to NOT be the next Hoover.

RightisRight-
"Bush's lousy numbers" as you state, are these, just to begin:

An economy in meltdown toward a depression with unfunded structural deficits as far as the eye can see; a surplus turned into a doubling of the debt, two botched wars, etc. etc.

Name a few Republicans who voted against it while Bush was still President and was attempting to NOT be the next Hoover.

#90 | Posted by BetelG

Obama's projected budgets (and his 1st-year budget) are set to exceed Bush's average budgets 5-fold.

So, it was bad when Bush and the GOP did it, but when Obama and the DNC do it 5-fold it's not only necessary but laudable? Is that about it?

Not only laudable. But it's irresponsible of him not to.

I have to confess I was unsure about Obama, until I saw a picture of Him with the sunlight of heaven alighting around his head. Now I see.

I'm one of the 22 percenters now. What's another ten trillion in deficit spending, to know you're on the side of righteousness?

An economy in meltdown toward a depression with unfunded structural deficits as far as the eye can see; a surplus turned into a doubling of the debt, two botched wars, etc. etc.

#91 | Posted by BetelG

So...take Bush's obvious criminal-failings, quintuple down on them and...Voila...out comes Obama and your consternation amazingly morphs into adulation and lust...Why?

Well, just because.

Bush cut trillions in taxes without paying for it and added trillions in Medicare spending without paying for it.

Obama, by contrast, put the stimulus bill on the deficit, as you would expect for a countercyclical program, but his health-care bill actually raises more money than it spends, and reduces the deficit in both its first and second decades.

Saying Obama is far more fiscally responsible than Bush may not be saying much, but it does put Republican fury about the deficit in context.

If Judge Breyer's wife worked for MoveOn or Planned Parenthood, the rightwingers would have melt down about how inappropriate that is. But Thomas' wife working for a rightwing political lobby group doesn't bother them in the least. What a surprise.

People like Corky don't even understand how budgets work.

Which is why they're in the minority, and he looks more silly by the day.

Oh, your heroine GW understood budgets, by golly!

"Just put that on poor people's children's credit cards.... and now watch this swing!"

So, RisLame, you never told me how it feels to have the yet to be born children of poor Americans paying for the tax cuts GW gave you?

Pretty good, right?

Poor Americans don't pay for anything I have.

Sure they do. They are and will pay for your tax cuts, passed off budget and under reconciliation, btw.

Another thing that's funny. Here's a thread about a Supreme Court justice's wife who is starting a PAC, and we're at 100 posts. A couple of links down, you'll see that the Obama Administration will be collecting DNA samples from people who are charged with crimes. Not convicted, mind you, just charged.

10 posts over there. Remember when you libtards pretended to be so upset over things like the Patriot Act, and civil liberties, and "keep your laws off my body" when it was Republicans passing them?

Now, not so much. You'll sit still for authoritarianism, as long it's a guy you voted for. Unbelievable.

I take that back. Not unbelievable.

Isn't the tea party supposed to be racist?

Is Clarence's wife white?

impeach his ass.

Jeff-
re: So, it was bad when Bush and the GOP did it....

Dunno; didn't hear much from you then

but when Obama and the DNC do it 5-fold it's not only necessary but laudable? Is that about it?

...still not clear that you understand the difference between the debt and deficit, or your own egregious hypocrisy of silence while the US economy was brought to the edge of complete collapse.

Is Clarence's wife white?

#107 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2010-03-15 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't know. Does it matter to you?

"A couple of links down, you'll see that the Obama Administration will be collecting DNA samples from people who are charged with crimes. Not convicted, mind you, just charged."

Sort of like fingerprints.
Not quite the same thing as eliminating habeas corpus, rendering, water boarding, etc.

While the typical DR Rightards are giving each other congratulatory reach-arounds ever since the right-wing SC decided to let corporations choose our President, they conveniently forget one thing.
Donors LOVE an incumbent. These same laws you love may backfire all over you faces...but then, your probably used to that by now.

I bet Thomas' wife is a pubic hair lip.

An observation on the use of race and this thread. Below are the all the entries that brought race into the discussion:

#4 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2010-03-14 04:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#14 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2010-03-14 05:05 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#17 | POSTED BY OUR_ZERO AT 2010-03-14 05:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#19 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2010-03-14 05:18 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#37 | POSTED BY 1LIBERTARIAN AT 2010-03-14 07:01 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#54 | POSTED BY 1LIBERTARIAN AT 2010-03-14 09:55 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#107 | POSTED BY MYSTERYTOY AT 2010-03-15 01:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

No one else made mention, except for Danni in a response.

Dunno; didn't hear much from you then

I ripped Bush and the GOP relentlessly for their profligate spending.

...still not clear that you understand the difference between the debt and deficit,

Deficits are measured on an annual basis and are a negative ratio of revenues to expenditures. Debt is the accumulation of liabilities (the sum of all un-funded deficits). Jesus. You are one arrogant and condescending asshole.

or your own egregious hypocrisy of silence while the US economy was brought to the edge of complete collapse.

A lot of factors played in including GOP criminal malfeasance. MY point is that Obama and the Dems are quintupling down on that same malfeasance and you are jumping up and down cheering away. Given what they inherited, a deficit-budget is completely understandable; but he's looking to average well over $1 trillion per year. That is gross negligence no matter how you slice it. But of course, you'll defend it and support it to your grave; even if it ends up pauparizing your kids and grandkids - all because you have 'feelings' for Obama and the DNC.

even the whiney geek lawyer on cnn...tobin..said that there is no law and its not even unethical unless she filed a breif or was involved in a court case and he could then take himself out of the case.

and isnt it TYPICAL that dems who ISSA now says the white house DID IN FACT offer a white house job to
whatshisname DEM for his vote...

and rangle sat as chair until just recently and PELOSI knew all about massa and the KICKBACK to that one senators BROTHER and over and over and over the dems roll right over ethics and YET...this is news...

what a bunch of sacks.

"When the Times asked Mrs. Thomas about this interesting situation, she responded with the traditional right wing charge of the media imposing a double standard on conservatives, pointing out that the elected governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, is married to a federal judge. She conveniently left out that any political contributions to Mr. Rendell are both limited and fully disclosed under Federal law, and that Judge Rendell scrupulously avoids any political activities."

In response to 1TEABAGITARIAN (calls himself 'libertarian' BWAAAA!) who brought up Gov. Ed Rendell.

I guess even you cant see the obvious double standard that goes on in the media and now the govt.

tsk tsk tsk tsk....

hey every seen the pbs special with the irish girls singing...especailly lisa and chloe....its pretty good but still sounds a little 'canned'...watched it at a buddies house who bought it...not bad

I guess even you cant see the obvious conflict with a SCOTUS wife taking advantage of a ruling by her husband for political purposes.

and I guess even you have forgotten all of the dems like dashle who have and had spouses all over the dem govt as lobbyists etc

fienstien in california is on DEFENSE COmmmitte and her husband...???

gets paid for defense contracts and all she has ever said is..well we dont know what the other is doing...
if she can do that then this is a mere shadow of that possible graft and theft...

AND as I said..jeff tubin on cnn said there was nothing illegal or even unethical....so dont take my word for it.

She conveniently left out that any political contributions to Mr. Rendell are both limited and fully disclosed under Federal law, and that Judge Rendell scrupulously avoids any political activities."

#117 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

AU-hole, we all know that NO politician would ever steer work to a family member (ala Polosi [who I swear will have a fish-flavored gotee if she gets 1 more face lift]) or just take bribes (like Jefferson who had 50K in his freezer) just to name a few. Besides, do you think that the contributors to this 501c4 organization won't be audited by the IRS? By every leftist in the universe hoping to find some dirt?

WTF does a word you said have to do with my post?

You brought up Rendell. I thrashed your point with salient facts: Rendall's wife avoids all politics, Rendell's contributions are open to scrutiny - Thomas's wife's aren't.

Thomas passed an law that was the only reason his wife is allowed to do what she's doing - with no sunshine allowed - can't even know who the donors are, unlike Rendell's.

BTW, I saw exactly where you got your talking point from: Thomas's wife herself. God, you're gullible.

In case you got distracted on RedState or something:

"She conveniently left out that any political contributions to Mr. Rendell are both limited and fully disclosed under Federal law, and that Judge Rendell scrupulously avoids any political activities."

Can you begin to understand the difference between what Thomas's wife is doing? After her own husband's ruling made it possible for her to do so with no scrutiny of donors or contributions? Can't even know their names vs Rendell's legally required disclosure and his wife's scrupulously avoiding any political activities? In a word .... no.

AU-hole... if you honestly think that someone won't find every single donor to her org and publish their names on the web, you are an idiot.

Having worked in and around tax agencies, I can tell you that peoples' tax records are about as closed as paris hilton's knees.

Case in point, when Joe the plumber "tricked" Obama, how long did it take for his entire life to be known? His tax records were available... how soon? Or how about when Weslie Snipes' tax evasion case was going on, there was a big hubbub becuase they were accessed about 40 times in 1 hour.

But I am sure that no reporter would ever be curious, and get a peek at her financial records, or the judge's, or the 501c4.

No, of course not. Reporters and dems would NEVER think about breaking the law.

And that was my point. Politicans break the laws. Rangle reports stuff that isn't true, or just doesn't report things at all. Others take money and put it in their freezer, not reporting it. The fact this the dem in penn has "open" records has NO BEARING on what he is actually getting, or from whom.

The teabaggers can argue til the cows come home, Mrs. Thomas can claim no conflict, Justice Thomas can too but the fact will remain.....Justice Thomas's votes will forever now be suspected of bias, his position is compromised in the eyes of thinking Americans. His wife has the right to do as she wants, that isn't really questioned, it is the lack of judgement which is.

Clarence "Marcel Marceau" Thomas' wife is making a killing by preying on the ignorance of the rtards who've fallen into the trap of believing the Teabagger movement isn't a corporate shell game?

Well, nobody ever went broke betting against the IQ of the average rtard.

American government is no longer of the people, by the people and for the people.

You are now all property of national and international wealth.

Gratz!/snark>

The beginning of the end of the American economic hegemony.

Maybe a good thing in the long run.

Maybe not.

Be Well.

You brought up Rendell. I thrashed your point with salient facts: Rendall's wife avoids all politics, Rendell's contributions are open to scrutiny - Thomas's wife's aren't.

22 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010

you said not one single word to dispell the point..
rendell has never been accused of what the left has said about this thomas deal and for good reason..
IF they say this about thomas they look as they always do..hypocritical and a liar...

and your comments in the first part I have here show your bias on the entire matter...

OOPS...except for the scrutiny remark....

some of you here who profess to be so fuckin smart need to read a fuckin book or watch something besides olberman showing what a dumbfuck he is or mahr proving he's an upright asshole

read thomas's bio...from complete poverty and slept in a chair until he was nine..sent to live with his grandfather who he promised that he would stay in college and when thomas didnt,.the old man through him out like he said he would and today he is on the supreme court

HEY ASSHOLE HANKS...where is the movie on this GREAT AMERICAN SUCCESS STORY..
hey motherfucker sean penn....why not direct a movie about THIS guy?

and where are all the awards you lying TAX CHEATS AT THE naacp?????

never mind I KNOW whY you wont see those things

biased bastards..

Clarence Thomas: Worst SC Justice ever. Useless.

#12 | Posted by americanunity

No, that would be Ruth Bater Ginzberg from the Anti Christ Lawyers Union that stupid Republicans let Clinton stuff in there.

Justice Thomas's votes will forever now be suspected of bias, his position is compromised in the eyes of thinking Americans. #125 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-16 08:53 AM | Reply | Flag

Please. You're telling me this wasn't your position before Thomas's wife started the lobby? Every time a Thomas post comes up, all I read here is that Thomas is a sellout to the right and corporate America, he's a Scalia copycat, he biased and compromised. Now that his wife is a lobbyist, he's now biased and compromised?

Tell me, just how exactly do you think Thomas's votes will get more right-leaning due to his wife's political actions?

I do think he will need to be extremely careful about which cases he rules on; if there is any connection to his wife's lobby, then he will need to recuse himself. The Dems in Pennsylvania that 1Lib brought up seem to have a pretty good grasp on what is legal and what is not; the Thomas's will need to emulate their example to avoid any conflict of interest.

Why do pubbies often try to justify their indiscretions by comparative behavior? Two wrongs don't make a right.

#10 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2010-03-14 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Who knew AU was a pubbie?

She conveniently left out that any political contributions to Mr. Rendell are both limited and fully disclosed under Federal law, and that Judge Rendell scrupulously avoids any political activities."

#117 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Mr Rendell signs the laws, Mrs Rendell rules whether they are constitutional

kinda like Labron's mom refereeing his games

Archie Manning reviewing Payton's red-flag replays

kinda like Elin Woods signing Tigers - - ooops . . forget that one

anyway, and then there is . . .
Justice Thomas upholding the Constitution - - AND - - Virginia Thomas promoting "upholding the Constitution"

was up?

Apples and Oranges - Thomas vs Rendell

Apples and Oranges - Thomas vs Rendell

#134 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

soon we'll have him bringing his grandchildren to Teaparties, under an alias of course :)

WTF are you babbling about now?

Don't you know what the term 'apples and oranges' means?

WTF are you babbling about now?

Don't you know what the term 'apples and oranges' means?

#136 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

just teach the grandkids to say 'thank you' when someone offers 'em a cookie & a US Constitution

they'll fit right in there . . . much better than at a G20 lefty protest - -

tho some do offer custom toddler kevlar

Try reading and you'll be better off

and isnt it TYPICAL that dems who ISSA now says the white house DID IN FACT offer a white house job to
whatshisname DEM for his vote...

Sustek is running against Specter and teh WH wants him out so Arlen can at least win the Dem primary.

Toomey is going to win in PA anyway..

And it's quite unfreakinbelievable that someone would say that Rendell and Thomas are not the same!

Where is the logic??

You have a judge--and you have someone in politics.

It's the same damn thing.

And AU says Judge Rendell doesn't do politics--well NEITHER does SC Judge Thomas.

Rendell in the friggin Governor of PA.

And you have Ginny Thomas running some group and has been since forever. Whether it's the Heritage Foundation or this tea party social club.