Nadeau: The Bills Might Suck But How Dare Congress Intervene

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White folks so quick to have our black and brown brothers and sisters governed over by Congress

“States Rights” isn’t the rallying cry for racial justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to take this lady seriously.

I don't understand your issue. I mean, why isn't she right?

[Anonymous]

Can someone vote out these carpetbaggers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to take this lady seriously.

I don't understand your issue. I mean, why isn't she right?

See: Constitution, Of the United States of America (1791)

[Anonymous]

Nadeau’s husband is a healthcare executive and a board member of GGW who completely hides his connection to the council. Let a Republican try something like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to take this lady seriously.

I don't understand your issue. I mean, why isn't she right?

See: Constitution, Of the United States of America (1791)

See: the difference between "it is legal to" and "it is moral/ethical/good public policy to"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to take this lady seriously.

I don't understand your issue. I mean, why isn't she right?

See: Constitution, Of the United States of America (1791)

See: the difference between "it is legal to" and "it is moral/ethical/good public policy to"

Thankfully dunking on this Council meets both requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to take this lady seriously.

I don't understand your issue. I mean, why isn't she right?

See: Constitution, Of the United States of America (1791)

See: the difference between "it is legal to" and "it is moral/ethical/good public policy to"

The DC Council is not a credible legislative body. They have made a mockery of the requirement that two of the at-large seats are reserved for non majority parties. One party rule, R or D, leads to bad policy. As, we see with this Council over and over. It’s a race to the bottom to see which council member can come up with kookier ideas to spend money. They deserve to get dunked on by Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to take this lady seriously.

I don't understand your issue. I mean, why isn't she right?

See: Constitution, Of the United States of America (1791)

See: the difference between "it is legal to" and "it is moral/ethical/good public policy to"

The DC Council is not a credible legislative body. They have made a mockery of the requirement that two of the at-large seats are reserved for non majority parties. One party rule, R or D, leads to bad policy. As, we see with this Council over and over. It’s a race to the bottom to see which council member can come up with kookier ideas to spend money. They deserve to get dunked on by Congress.

That means "I personally have a low opinion of the DC Council."

Well, I, personally, have a low opinion of the Republicans in Congress, and especially of the Republicans in Congress who yammer on about small government and local government and then decide to make it their business to tell the government of DC, duly elected by the voters in DC, how to spend DC tax dollars. Therefore, they are not credible legislators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nadeau’s husband is a healthcare executive and a board member of GGW who completely hides his connection to the council. Let a Republican try something like this.

Clarence Thomas’s wife.
John Roberts’s wife.

Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nadeau’s husband is a healthcare executive and a board member of GGW who completely hides his connection to the council. Let a Republican try something like this.

Gross. The GGW and the hiding part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to take this lady seriously.

I don't understand your issue. I mean, why isn't she right?

See: Constitution, Of the United States of America (1791)

See: the difference between "it is legal to" and "it is moral/ethical/good public policy to"

The DC Council is not a credible legislative body. They have made a mockery of the requirement that two of the at-large seats are reserved for non majority parties. One party rule, R or D, leads to bad policy. As, we see with this Council over and over. It’s a race to the bottom to see which council member can come up with kookier ideas to spend money. They deserve to get dunked on by Congress.

That means "I personally have a low opinion of the DC Council."

Well, I, personally, have a low opinion of the Republicans in Congress, and especially of the Republicans in Congress who yammer on about small government and local government and then decide to make it their business to tell the government of DC, duly elected by the voters in DC, how to spend DC tax dollars. Therefore, they are not credible legislators.

The Congressional Democrats will kill this bill, not just the Republicans. Just like they’ve killed DC statehood many times over the years. They understand how crazy the DC Council is as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nadeau’s husband is a healthcare executive and a board member of GGW who completely hides his connection to the council. Let a Republican try something like this.

Gross. The GGW and the hiding part.

Ooo, scary, a healthcare executive, who is a board member of a local non-profit, is married to a DC City Council member.

Gross would be something like urging state lawmakers to overturn the results of a presidential election, while being married to a Supreme Court justice who refuses to recuse himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to take this lady seriously.

I don't understand your issue. I mean, why isn't she right?

See: Constitution, Of the United States of America (1791)

See: the difference between "it is legal to" and "it is moral/ethical/good public policy to"

The DC Council is not a credible legislative body. They have made a mockery of the requirement that two of the at-large seats are reserved for non majority parties. One party rule, R or D, leads to bad policy. As, we see with this Council over and over. It’s a race to the bottom to see which council member can come up with kookier ideas to spend money. They deserve to get dunked on by Congress.

That means "I personally have a low opinion of the DC Council."

Well, I, personally, have a low opinion of the Republicans in Congress, and especially of the Republicans in Congress who yammer on about small government and local government and then decide to make it their business to tell the government of DC, duly elected by the voters in DC, how to spend DC tax dollars. Therefore, they are not credible legislators.

The Congressional Democrats will kill this bill, not just the Republicans. Just like they’ve killed DC statehood many times over the years. They understand how crazy the DC Council is as well.

It’s going to be fun seeing how many Ds vote with Rs so that they are not on record as being soft on crime.

[Anonymous]

If Nadeau’s husband serving on the board of GGW isn’t an issue why does he omit it on his bio?