Conrads Burns on firefighters

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:57 pm

iaafan wrote:Well I hope that the firefighters did try to defend themselves. They should have and if they did it only speaks to the level that Burns was trying to bully his way around.

Burns seems to be thinking this: "I'm the Senator that my party overwhelmingly wants to maintain this seat (his opponent in the primary wasn't even allowed equal time at Republican functions) even though I'm all wrapped up in the Abramoff scandal and I'm a racist, so I guess I can say whatever I want to whoever I want."

If the management of the fires leaves a lot to be desired, then Burns (since he was capable of getting elected) should have the sense to take the issue to the people in upper management, unless those people have a close tie to his office. If so, he doesn't want to say they are the ones screwing up. But that is assuming that anything is screwed up at all. It may just be the nature of the beast that is a fire or hurricane or tornado.

In the end I just can't imagine anyone being this stupid and having this kind of nerve. But I guess they go hand-in-hand and Burns has shown throughout his career that he's not very diplomatic. Leave off the lomatic part and there you have Burns.

Nice rant!

Kaaaachiiiiiiiing.........

Another check goes off to the Burns campaign.

(I really wish that BN had a separate forum for politics).

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:53 am

Nothing new ... just rehashing what we already know:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/08 ... tml#014997

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:34 pm

Burns screws himself, then apologizes, then screws himself the same way. This time a 72-year old woman gets in his way. nice.

Annabelle Richards, 72, a Democratic Party volunteer, said the issue has lingered with Burns.

Last weekend, Richards was working a fair booth in Helena and had displayed a Democratic sign, "We support the firefighters." Richards said she offered to shake Burns' hand. As he did, "he kind of snorted or scoffed and just said, 'You people, where do you people dig up this crap?'"

"Where he gets with people who are maybe not his supporters, he blows the opportunity to make a few points," Richards said. Burns would pick up some votes and more people would like him "if he wasn't so antagonistic and insulting."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2006/08/ ... 24542.html

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:07 pm

go kats...

just what in conrad's overall and more important recent record/political agenda makes you want to jump in his lap and lick his face...????...

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:13 pm

go cats...

just a serious question...i don't understand blind followership by anyone...for any reason...call me a cynical jerk but i just don't trust anyone or anything to the extent i can overlook their serious mistakes or blunders...particularly politicians....

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:36 pm

couloir41 wrote:go cats...

just a serious question...i don't understand blind followership by anyone...for any reason...call me a cynical jerk but i just don't trust anyone or anything to the extent i can overlook their serious mistakes or blunders...particularly politicians....

By no means is it blind followership (is that even a word?)

I simply think Burns has done things for Montana (and MSU) that I can appreciate and he and our other two in Congress are achieving some superiority in committee assignments, etc. which is key when you have a state the size of Montana with only three votes in Washington. My political leanings are obvious, but until someone I think can better represent Montana I'll support Burns (and Baucus for that matter).

I've chaired the legislation committee for our state professional association since 1985 and spend a great deal of time in Helena during the legislative session, so it isn't like I don't know the opponent.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:44 pm

i guess i wasn't clear enough...

your kaching remark indicated you apparently do not see enough of a problem with sen burns conduct...apparent lapses in integrity...and blatant bigotry...to remotely sense maybe his conduct has outlived his usefulness as far as montana's long term interests are concerned...

and i might add here that matters of seniority should not be included in the discussion...simply because integrity is much more important than how long someone occupies a senate seat regardless of the cost of his or her blunders and embarrassment to taxpayers and voters...really...where do YOU draw the line...futher the seniority defense is always applied when arguments of substance don't exist for the encumbent...where do YOU draw the line on pork...afterall montana is one of thirteen or so welfare states...i'm sure you are well aware montanans receive almost $2.00 for $1.00 we pay in federal taxes in federal subsidies and matching money...so it's not like a new comer...someone in place of burns...could not find his or her way to the trough if they so decided...without making the rest of us sound like we're frankly...ignorant bigots....

i'm curious...what state professional association do you chair...???

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:09 am

couloir41 wrote:...apparent lapses in integrity...

??? I assume your talking about Abramoff. So does everyone that took money from Abramoff have the "apparent lapses in intergrity"

So if Burns is re-elected will the majority of Montanans be blind partisans, or do maybe they have different life experiences than some one so all knowing as you.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:22 am

Another view on the issue from the Billings Business Journal:
http://www.bigskybusiness.com/modules.p ... =0&thold=0

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:22 am

Ponycat wrote:
couloir41 wrote:...apparent lapses in integrity...
??? I assume your talking about Abramoff. So does everyone that took money from Abramoff have the "apparent lapses in intergrity"

So if Burns is re-elected will the majority of Montanans be blind partisans, or do maybe they have different life experiences than some one so all knowing as you.

What makes Burns stick out isn't that he took money from Abramoff, but the fact that Abramhoff said he could get anything he wanted from Burns. To have that from the mouth of Abramoff is pretty damning. I don't know of anyone else that Abramoff highlighted like he did with Burns.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:08 pm

go cats....

i am still interested in your thoughts on burns' integrity issues and what criteria do you value when you sort out political players...???...particularly since abramoff and burns traded staff members and burns staff frequented abramoff's restaurant frequently...the term they used was cafeteria...not to mention burns' support for abramoff clients...???...what say you...?

i am also interested in what association you chair...???

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:45 pm

couloir41 wrote:go cats....

i am still interested in your thoughts on burns' integrity issues and what criteria do you value when you sort out political players...???...particularly since abramoff and burns traded staff members and burns staff frequented abramoff's restaurant frequently...the term they used was cafeteria...not to mention burns' support for abramoff clients...???...what say you...?

i am also interested in what association you chair...???

I have no problem with what you perceive to be 'integrity' issues and how I rate political candidates. Play with abramoff all you want to.......doesn't matter $hit to me- you're just looking for dirt.

Though I am a past-pres of our state assoc'n., if you will read my post I did not indicate in any way that I am the current 'chair'. Take off your blinders!

As far as what I do for a living and what association I'm involved with- kiss off!! Did I ask what you do for a living?

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:12 pm

go cats...

you still did not answer my question...let me take another shot at it...

what would you define as an integrity issue that would be detrimental to a public office holder...???

where do you draw the line on pork...???

also you brought up the association affiliation remark...if you don't want people to quiz you on such matters don't "bait"...

another question...does your dog run and hide when you come in the house...???

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:51 pm

couloir41 wrote:go cats...

you still did not answer my question...let me take another shot at it...

what would you define as an integrity issue that would be detrimental to a public office holder...???

where do you draw the line on pork...???

also you brought up the association affiliation remark...if you don't want people to quiz you on such matters don't "bait"...

another question...does your dog run and hide when you come in the house...???

what would you define as an integrity issue that would be detrimental to a public office holder...???

Proven facts rather than innuendo.

where do you draw the line on pork...???

I've cooked whole hogs in my day, but generally just do what I can on the BBQ anymore, so I don't have to draw lines on ribs, etc. (I do have to admit that when I do a nice boneless loin on the rotisserie that I sometimes look at the strings). Seriously.....Montana is one of the largest states with one of the smallest populations to maintain infrastructure, so have no problem with our three in Washington bringing home some bacon.

also you brought up the association affiliation remark...if you don't want people to quiz you on such matters don't "bait"...

I wasn't baiting anyone............ I was just establishing the fact that I probably know more about the state legislative assembly than the vast majority of those casting votes in a Montana election.

another question...does your dog run and hide when you come in the house...???[/

My 19 mo. old Alaskan Malamute generally spends most of the day with me, whether I'm in the office or in the field (I do own my own business).

Though he's really not an inside dog, he does come in every night for awhile for some lovin' on the couch (getting way too big, but he's still a pup), a treat (either a rawhide or real bone), and a drink out of one of the toilets (because no matter what water supply I provide, including a 5' diameter wading pool I bought a few weeks ago thinking that he would get in it and cool off a bit- he's afraid of water).

BTW......how's fifi?

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:52 am

couloir41 wrote:go cats...

you still did not answer my question...let me take another shot at it...

what would you define as an integrity issue that would be detrimental to a public office holder...???

where do you draw the line on pork...???

also you brought up the association affiliation remark...if you don't want people to quiz you on such matters don't "bait"...

another question...does your dog run and hide when you come in the house...???

I would like to hear what "pork" projects brought back to Montana you disagree with... either Burns, Baucus or Rehberg's "pork" or all three. Or maybe Tester had some Pork brought back to Chouteau Co. you disagree with.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:25 pm

pony cat...

i don't think i said anywhere that i opposed pork...but i'll take you off the hook on this obvious oversight on your part by answering your question in broadstroke terms...ok...?

i object to corporate agricultural pork...

i object to any kind of extractive industry pork...

i object to any tax cut to the "wealthy" that forces the lower classes to pick up the difference...example...the so called death tax...it is a subsidy to the wealthy...

i object to any program that unnecessarily diverts disposable income from the middle class to any other class...the middle class should be targeted for future so the middle class can stimulate the economy...

i know there are some issues i am missing but it's late and i am going to hit the sack...

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:44 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
mslacat wrote:Maybe I am dence, but could someone from the right wing side explain to me what Burns was trying to say here, and the concetion between this and the "war on terror"

The he here is Burns:

"He replied, `We're fighting a war on terror and we're concerned about safety there too, but we're out there doing it,"' Rosenthal wrote.
The connections is this ... whenever a Republican politician is caught in a situation where they don't know what they are doing, what they are saying, or particularly if they know that what they've previously said or done was outright wrong, they are trained (by observing others higher up in the party do it) to say "War on Terror," and the theory goes that everyone will get scared, clutch their children close, and not question them on that point any further.

It used to work, too, but I think, as with everything, if it is overused, it loses it's effectiveness. If it hadn't already jumped the shark, this quote definitely did the trick.

Or, you were right in your initial Katrina comment, but now have to back out on that due to political partisanship. Why is this any different than the Dems who pointed the finger at the National Guard after the Katrina (media-exaggerated) tragedy?

It's all about constituents, and you were right in your initial, objective assessment.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:47 pm

couloir41 wrote:pony cat...

i don't think i said anywhere that i opposed pork...but i'll take you off the hook on this obvious oversight on your part by answering your question in broadstroke terms...ok...?

i object to corporate agricultural pork...

i object to any kind of extractive industry pork...

i object to any tax cut to the "wealthy" that forces the lower classes to pick up the difference...example...the so called death tax...it is a subsidy to the wealthy...

i object to any program that unnecessarily diverts disposable income from the middle class to any other class...the middle class should be targeted for future so the middle class can stimulate the economy...

i know there are some issues i am missing but it's late and i am going to hit the sack...

So you accept pork when it fits your political agenda.

That was easy...

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:58 am

spew forth...

what are your favorite political and practical follies...papa g...

if you would like me to expound say so...

go cats...fifi is an athletic black lab who is a great buddy and field trial guy...although not much field trial lately...

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:29 am

couloir41 wrote: i object to any tax cut to the "wealthy" that forces the lower classes to pick up the difference...example...the so called death tax...it is a subsidy to the wealthy...

i object to any program that unnecessarily diverts disposable income from the middle class to any other class...the middle class should be targeted for future so the middle class can stimulate the economy...

Is it me or is this a contradiction. Completely getting rid of the death tax, I see your point and agree but simply wanting to raise the cut off (which is what the debate if over) I don't, and every small business owner and family farmer/rancher I've talked to agrees.