Believe it? Or not!

[Guest]

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/03/19/the-heat-is-on-congressmans-office-says-constituent-calls-are-harassment/

I choose to believe it. Typical response by this administration and it's supporters when there is opposition to their cause. How un patriotically sad and small minded.

btk

[Guest]

There have been many articles about the comparison of this administration and the Chicago Mob. How's that hopey Changey thing working out for ya?

I sure miss George B.

[Guest]

About as good as the previous administration's "anyone who disagrees with us is disloyal and un-American" attitude.

This is nothing new in Washington politics.

Sad that a staffer doesn't know the difference between harassment, lobbying and pleading.

[Guest]

About as good as the previous administration's "anyone who disagrees with us is disloyal and un-American" attitude.

This is nothing new in Washington politics.

Sad that a staffer doesn't know the difference between harassment, lobbying and pleading.

I dont recall any harrassment or such by the last administration as you allude to...perhaps you can cite some example of that. This thread is not about espousing what you believe but the downright harassing of folks..and it is within the same party..amazing stuff we are witnessing.

[Guest]

It doesn't make any difference whether the member was a Democrat or Republican. I'd say the attorney probably was trying to harass, or at least tie up a phone line to his Congressman's office.

Anyone who knows much about Congress knows that the staffers basically record "for" or "against" when constituents call. Even if staffers had the time to engage in a debate on the content of a particular bill, that information would never get to the Congressman. It would still be recorded as a for or against, so the member would have an idea of the feelings of his constituents.

For the blogger to make more of the incident than this is somewhere between stupid and laughable. It only demonstrates an intent to induce a partisan response...as was posting the link here.

[Guest]

Deleted by OP

[Guest]

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/03/19/the-heat-is-on-congressmans-office-says-constituent-calls-are-harassment/

I choose to believe it. Typical response by this administration and it's supporters when there is opposition to their cause. How un patriotically sad and small minded.

btk

Good for him. He sounds like a good man and a good ex-marine. At least he tried to sound off to someone in person. Maybe more of us should be doing the same thing.

[Guest]

It doesn't make any difference whether the member was a Democrat or Republican. I'd say the attorney probably was trying to harass, or at least tie up a phone line to his Congressman's office.

Anyone who knows much about Congress knows that the staffers basically record "for" or "against" when constituents call. Even if staffers had the time to engage in a debate on the content of a particular bill, that information would never get to the Congressman. It would still be recorded as a for or against, so the member would have an idea of the feelings of his constituents.

For the blogger to make more of the incident than this is somewhere between stupid and laughable. It only demonstrates an intent to induce a partisan response...as was posting the link here.

You intimated that this staffer was one who just wanted to record a yes or no.

It is quite obvious you did not read the post.

[Guest]

what I said, or re-define what I said or define my intent. And when they do, I cannot let it pass without notation.

VK, your statement:
"It only demonstrates an intent to induce a partisan response...as was posting the link here."
It is not, was not partisan intended...it was specific to Obama characterization....and not ANY party.

While you and all others are entitled to your opinion(s), your characterization of the reason for my post is totally and completely incorrect.

btk

[Guest]

. It only demonstrates an intent to induce a partisan response...as was posting the link here.
Oh yes. We all know that the art of "baiting" is only practiced by the conservatives. :rolleyes:

[Guest]

what I said, or re-define what I said or define my intent. And when they do, I cannot let it pass without notation.

VK, your statement:
"It only demonstrates an intent to induce a partisan response...as was posting the link here."
It is not, was not partisan intended...it was specific to Obama characterization....and not ANY party.

While you and all others are entitled to your opinion(s), your characterization of the reason for my post is totally and completely incorrect.

btk

My experience also with VK.

[Guest]

That Librerals (progressives) will not stay on subject because they are interested only in spinning their talking points.