mr_genius

I'm not surprised. This whole "national building" idea is such a bad one.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 11:29 AM) The Dems are trying to push through an expansion of the SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, to allow the popular and effective program to provide insurance to every uninsured child in the U.S. (naturally, Bush has threatened to Veto, can't be showing that government run healthcare actually works or giving the Dems a policy victory.) In this version, the Dems have removed the requirement that people provide proof of citizenship in order to qualify for the program, at least according to this report. everyone under 25 is a child now? no one objects to continuing the SCHIP, what is unacceptable is giving free health care to every 25 and under illegal. Basically, the Dems are trying to attach a huge socialized health care program to a popular health care for children law. They just want to cry "see, they hate..... THE CHILDREN!". They will scream this even though they know that funding for medical care for children is not the problem.

Any of you see how the Dems are trying to slam this bill through congress that will give all illegal aliens, under the age of 25, free universal health care?

we will have a land mark that looks like a vibrator and one that looks like a bean Chicago rules

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) the majority on the court knew full well they were deciding that based entirely on the 5-4 lead the Republicans had in appointments to the court, and that they felt it was a political decision and not a legal one. or was it the 4 that voted not to enforce current state laws which were acting politically?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) Let's make a couple other things clear. 1. There is no crime in the firing of the U.S. attorneys. The way the law was written at the time, the Bush administration was fully within their rights to replace them for whatever reason they wanted without Congressional approval. In addition, Congress was fully justified in dragging members of the Justice Dept., including those involved in making the firing decisions, up to Congress to have them testify about how the law was being used, since the law was just changed by the Patriot Act. Congress is further justified in obtaining documents and similar information about that case for that reason alone, given that it is the body which created, funds, and oversees the Justice Department. 2. During this investigation, several potential crimes actually have cropped up. First of all, the Attorney General and others on his team felt that whether illegal or not, firing U.S. attorneys during the middle of an administration for political and not performance reasons reasons, which really is unprecedented despite what you claim (the Bush admin fired attorneys both at the beginning of its term, a-la Clinton, and then removed their own replacements mid-term for not being partisan enough), and then using newly and secretly acquired powers to appoint replacements without Senate approval, was embarrassing enough that he had to lie about it under oath. Repeatedly. 3. Furthermore, during this investigation, it has come out that the administration appears to have completely defied the Presidential Records act, by having a huge portion of its emails sent out through RNC servers, when that Act requires that all presidential records are the property of the public and must be treated and preserved as such. 4. And beyond that, there is yet another more serious issue which has been covered up for the most part by the debate over the hearings; the voter suppression issue. The attempts to force attorneys to prosecute bogus Voter Fraud charges in the hopes of suppressing the vote in key districts, and the refusal of several attorneys to do so before the 2006 election is, based on the documents we already have, directly linked to the firings. While the White House would break no law in firing these folks for refusing to file trumped up charges, the attempts to influence the vote themselves may well have broken the line. Furthermore, other evidence has been uncovered of potential "caging lists", essentially lists of voters who the Republicans were planning to challenge if they went to the polls because the postal service could not deliver mail to them, due to the fact that they were forwarded to a George W. Bush parody site (the files were actually called "Caging list 1 and 2"). Both parties are prohibited from using these techniques under most circumstances. 5. And even beyond that, there is one other potential law broken; violations of the Hatch Act, which requires employees of the Executive Branch to perform their jobs in a non-partisan manner. Thanks to documents released by the DOJ, we've learned that over a dozen different parts of the executive branch, over the past few years, have received briefings about how they could help the Republicans to win elections through their positions, which appears to be a direct violation of that Act. The U.S. attorney firings were only the issue that got the investigation going and gave the Congress cause to start asking questions. When those questions were asked, possible violations of a variety of laws came to light, and Congress is fully within its rights to investigate those actions. If no charges come of it, then it really doesn't matter; Congress has the authority, as established by judicial precedent back in teh 80's, to break through Executive Priveledge on most issues if they are investigating even potential violations of the law. I don't think what happened with Gonzales is this HUGE deal that needs this much attention. What happened is standard... firing of attorney's for politcal reasons. The other stuff? I don't think any of it has been proven, not sure though because I'm really tired of this level of political bickering and have pretty much been ignoring political news lately. Oh, I'm sure the Dems will eventually get their "trophy kill", but I don't think it'll be Gonzales. I'm also sure they'll keep at it until they can get someone.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 03:08 PM) he used his police force like the SS when he was mayor. lol, now Giuliani is Hitler. I thought Bush was? make up your mind

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 12:25 PM) Lets clean the mess in government up instead of just letting it get worse. I'm sick of the shoulder-shrugging and the "well, they did it too!" I don't care -- firing good people simply because they wouldn't blatantly pursue only your political opponents is completely wrong and goes against the very foundations of this country. It needs to be investigated and fixed. Thats fine, and probably a good idea. However, this "outrage" over these US Attorney's being fired is completely manufactured. This has been going on for a long time. Is it really fair to make an example out of Gonzales? Wouldn't it be better to change the how the process works rather than just go after this guy for doing (albeit later than most) what many of his Predecessors had done?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) Well, the question of course is whether or not the letter of the law was actually violated. I think it's expected to be politicized to some extent (which is an unfortunate circumstance that based on the abuse of the DOJ in this case I think we should try to correct by increasing the independence of U.S. Attorneys from the White House by making their terms a fixed length and not having them serve at the President's discretion), but there are legit questions here about whether things crossed a line which had not been crossed before. Of course, when people refuse to testify, it's hard to find out whether or not that line was crossed. I guess Bush's main mistake was not firing all the Attorney's at the start and hire people he knew would be a type of political activist in the judiciary, because that's what Clinton and other presidents did. I think you might be right, what the Bush admin did may be technically illegal. However, I don't think it was ethically any worse than what the Clinton Admin did.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 12:04 PM) Acutally, that's what they're trying to determine -- if the Justice Department was completely politicized. It has been for a long time. Was completely politicized under B.Clinton too. Dems know this, they just really want a trophy conviction of a member of the Bush team to make all these expensive and seemingly endless investigations 'worthy'. This whole thing has nothing to do about justice, and everything to do about political revenge.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 21, 2007 -> 11:37 PM) This guy is a dolt. I really dislike him. he is very annoying

This whole investigation is just political bs. Put on some dog and pony show for the furthest reaches of the left base, get political revenge for the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, blah, blah, blah.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 07:41 PM) Really quick question, with my new position my company will match 6%. So I take it it is better to put money in my 401K instead of a savings account? I was thinking of putting $250-300 a week in my 401k. definitely put it in the 401k

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 11:41 AM) You can trust in science AND question it. You can believe the Goracle if you wish and still follow these: Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate: “Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” “Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.” “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.” That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change. Great post. The scientific "witch hunt" that is being leveled on scientists who think natural causes also affect global warming is out of hand.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2007 -> 11:54 AM) you should trust nothing that science has ever given you because it could be proven wrong. You should not trust quantum mechanics because physicists once didn't believe in it Of course theories have been proven wrong in the past, that fact alone does not discredit science. An abstract estimation of what is possible can be reached on many principles. As you mentioned quantum mechanics, Werner Heisenberg questioned what level science can actually understand most anything. This is not a reason to abandon science, as extremely close approximations are often the key to advances.

Last place, wow

Konerko is totally pwning

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) But that's just it, I do not think Rudy is the establishment's choice at all. I think they'd rather see Romney or Thompson. Rudy is too far off the reservation in too many areas. na, trust me, the GOP 'powers that be' want Giulinani to get the nod.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 14, 2007 -> 01:10 PM) I don't think they want Rudy, or McCain. I think its Romney or Thompson. They definitely don't like McCain. A lot of republicans like Giuliani, some of the far right might not totally accept him, but they realize they can't get their candidate every time. All Giuliani needs to do is convince the Republican base that he will support pro-life judges and legislation. Giuliani is still the "GOP establishment's" choice, and that is a big deal in the primary.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 08:51 PM) Between this, his pro-choice stand, his repeated infidelities, his questionable business dealings... he just isn't what the GOP wants. He won't get the nod. Well, if the GOP wants a GWBushII type, they will get totally decimated in the election. I think the american public has had enough of these new "conservatives". The only good thing that has come out of this admin are tax cuts and supreme court nominations. edit: ok, i'll also give them credit on busting up terror cells and stopping attacks in the US. The GOP knows they need to have someone more moderate. Personally, i hope Giuliani wins the whole thing. Shady business dealings and infidelities? uhhhh, he seems like a saint compared to the dems "hillary and bill clinton in 2008" ticket. Thats the main thing to the GOP, not letting Hilary be president. Republicans don't want to see taxes go up to 40% on working families again.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jul 13, 2007 -> 04:59 PM) The problem is that the people that need to see this, will never see it. oh, i'm sure if Giuliani wins the nomination, it will be a big attack ad theme. i wouldn't worry about not enough people seeing it.

Well, that will certainly destroy him I just found this on youtube, makes you really think about what the government and politicians are REALLY up to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxSctlgnNK0

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 10, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) Nah, I'm working on that right now Steff. I'm not closing this DB down and we may actually be able to do this without losing posts (key word being may) or any of the info. We have a lot of things in the pipeline right now but the good news is when this is done it should be screaming (key word being should). The stuff done last night worked brilliantly. Give me about 25-40 minutes or so Steff and I'll have your stuff (you don't have to log out or anything). I can probably help you fix the database (for free of course). I sent you a PM

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 11, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) Giulian's Swift Boat? doubt it i think that about sums it up.