Cknolls

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) Senator Mark Prior??? REALLY???? Nice!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:06 PM) Amen. We might be moving to Illinois, ironically. Your choice of Senators can't get any worse than here in the Land of Lincoln. Apparently, we have the second coming of the Messiah as our Senator.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 09:39 PM) Most definitely. Had a great flow. Bulls*** rolls downhill real nice..

I say let the UAW run GM for a year.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 02:41 PM) Do any of you drive a GM car(s)? Just wondering. No. Two Hondas here.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 02:57 PM) Actually, they published the allegations of a whistle blower which is not against the law. "whistle blower " right. There is no such thing. Intelligence agents are not covered under whistle blower laws. This asshole is a traitor. The majority of America feels the same way.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 02:00 PM) Nobody debates that. I love how "The President should follow the law" turns into "wiretapping is wrong." If you want to wiretap, fine. Get the damn warrant. They aren't that hard to get. Once again I ask: How long does it take to build a probable cause case against these people? It takes longer than 72 hrs or 15 days to build a solid case against these people. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110007848

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) Then take those 80% approval ratings in 2001-2002, the ones that got the Patriot Act passed 99-1, and use them to extend it from 72 hours to 2 weeks or whatever number would work better. Why don't the Senators or Reps who oppose this program offer up legislation to amend the problems they think it contains? Perhaps, nobody is opposed or was oppsed until the N.Y. Slimes broke the law and published a classified program.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) The answer to that I think is quite obvious...a significant amount of money comes into Mexico through the fact that people do cross the U.S. border, either find jobs or occasionally sell drugs or commit a crime...and then send a significant fraction of the profits back across the border through banks which allow easy money transfers to Mexico. These sort of border crossings pump a lot of cash into Mexico's economy, cash which then recirculates as those families spend it on food, etc. Why don't we tax these bastards on this money? If the banks don't comply, revoke their charters.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:44 PM) Totally. And if the Supreme Court disagrees on a couple rules, why the f*** should they be included, either? Be with the new America, or be gone! (Since, of course, "time was of the essence" was irrelevant, since they could get the warrant afterwards.) Is 72 hours long enough to establish probable cause with respect to a FISA warrant? And if not what then???

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11845

51 FOR 29 AGAINST Try again when Stephens is gone.

Both sides say they are against judicial activists. But the Dems want a Justice that defends the most activist ruling the Court may have ever issued. The Dems are laughable. They say there is no litmus test. Then Feinstein gets her chance to say her piece against Alito and says: "There is no way a pro choice Senator can vote for this judge. Smells like a litmus test, no. It is good to know that there is only one legal issue in this country.

What are the Dems thinking by delaying a vote of the full Senate until possibly next Tue. Do they really think this is good for them? Once again, Who is playing politics with the Judicial Branch? This will not work to their advantage because delaying the vote until the State of the Union Speech will only give Bush more incentive to have Alito sitting front and center next to the other Justice from the Supreme Court that will be in attendance for the speech. As of right now its 32 For 14 Against. in the full Senate.

How do you explain the lack of achievement of students in Washington D.C, which spends over $13000 per pupil per year (the highest in the country). Once again the old adage: you can't fix a problem by appropriating more money.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 01:01 AM) Senate Majority Leader and alleged insider trader Bill Frist: Samuel Alito is the "Worst Nightmare" of Democrats. He may be as good at timing the stock market as Hillary is timing the commodity markets.

Chicago Tribune Jan 9th or 10th had a synopsis of all Senators on the Judiciary Committee. They described John Kyl (Ariz.), Sam Brownback (Ks.), and either Tom Coburn (Ok.) or one other Repub. Sen. as either Conservative or very conservative, but described Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer as the Senators from their respective states. Are they not liberal???? Just one example, however slight, of media bias.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 12:08 AM) My prediction: Hillary Clinton wouldn't last to Super Tuesday. She's been a very good Senator for New York. So much so that the GOP can't even find a real candidate to pit against her. The next time an Elephant wins in New York or Illinois will be the same year a donkey wins in Alaska.

Still waiting for someone to give a good reason why Williams&Connolly filed so many briefs to keep the full report from the public?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:14 PM) Again, the only story I have seen about the Clinton thing is that laughably-biased op-ed piece that was posted early on. Has there been any actual, fact-based news about this whatsoever? Maybe that's why it's not headlines - it might be unfounded. If someone can provide a link to a real news article, I'd be curious to see it, BTW. I am NOT saying the Clintons aren't guilty - I've always thought Slick Willie was an unusually well-spoken used car salesman. But I've seen no actual news on this. Then why did the Clinton lawyers file motion after motion to have over 140 pages redacted from the final report? usually this only occurs when info pertaining to national security will be published. certainly not the case here. That is why this is laughable. Why was the case moved from a local Texas IRS office to Washington?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 03:27 AM) Lieberman sounds like a man who will think for himself rather than be led around by a ring through his nose. We need more like him in Congress. Kind of like the other Democrat who was also vilified for, oh my gosh, agreeing WITH Bush on how to fight the war on terror. He retired, but I wish he would have run for re-election, just to see how hard the Dems would have fought to replace him. Democrats like him,Reagan Dems, are presently Repubs because their former party does not stand for what it used to stand for.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:01 PM) I would still hesitiate to call this story really "reported" Where would you think that alleged obstruction of justice by a President should fall on a newscast? Call me silly but I would have thought it would have been screaming headlines and leading newscasts... Has it? I sure haven't seen it. It was picked up days later by some of the newspapers and wires, but it is so far back on the headlines it isn't even funny. But the media is not biased. :puke

Clinton Cover-Up In Barrett Report: Daily News The New York Daily News reports that the long-awaited Barrett report on the investigation into Henry Cisneros will claim that the Clinton administration actively covered up a tax-fraud case against the former HUD Secretary, and that the Hillary crony in charge of the IRS at that time played a key role in killing the investigation: A special prosecutor's long-delayed report charges that a coverup at senior levels of the Clinton administration killed a tax fraud case against ex-cabinet member Henry Cisneros, the Daily News has learned. David Barrett's 11-year, $23 million probe, which will be released tomorrow, states in stinging terms that this Clinton coverup succeeded. Cisneros was forced to admit in 1999 that he had made secret payments to a mistress before serving as Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Barrett investigated tax fraud charges stemming from those under-the-table payments. Then-IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson, a close friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), was involved in efforts to quash the probe, a source close to the case alleged. But Richardson's role was cut from Barrett's report, which went through 26 drafts, because Democratic law firm Williams & Connolly successfully pressured Barrett to remove a section of the report naming her, a source said. In a strange twist to the case, Cisneros' defense attorney now works at the IRS as chief of internal affairs. Cono Namorato refused to comment on the allegations in the Barrett report. Barrett alleges that Richardson and Barry Finkelstein, an attorney with the IRS, fixed the probe by assigning it to two low-level, inexperienced attorneys. A whistleblower, IRS criminal investigatgor James Filan, tried to blow the cover-up out of the water, but in the end did not succeed. The report, if the Daily News has its facts straight, will prove explosive to the 2006 re-election effort of Hillary Clinton, but even more damaging to her expected run at the Presidency in 2008. For instance, Williams and Connolly not only represents Cisneros in this probe, but also has as clients a couple named Bill and Hillary Clinton. It seems as though burying this report and getting a series of redactions helps a number of their clients out, a kind of anti-conflict of interest in this case. And it seems more than passingly strange that Cono Namorato winds up running the IRS division that would have been tasked with discovering a cover-up and malfeasance involving a former client after he gets done representing him. Someone has a lot of explaining to do. And while she tries to come up with an explanation, this will remind everyone what a "culture of corruption" really looks like, as this will bring up the ethical morass of the Clinton years all over again. The Democrats may well have to rethink their electoral theme for 2006 -- again.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:17 PM) By my count, there are at least 23 Wal-Marts in the state of Maryland (and I forgot to search for Sam's Clubs), so I doubt that they're leave the state. Maryland may be a small state, but it isn't that small. For someone who lives in, say, Glen Ellyn (chosen at random, BTW), you can probably get to Indiana or Wisconsin just as quickly than someone who lives in Towson MD can get to another state. I sure wouldn't make the drive. I'd just go to Target or Costco. The danger to Wal-Mart is if a great deal of states start jumping on the bandwagon, which they probably will. I doubt many votes are lost on taking on Wal-Mart. Don't know for sure, just a hunch. They could decide not to build the distribution wharehouse under consideration.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 10:04 PM) It's one thing to attack the other party's ideology and another to attack with smear tactics (see Swift Boat Veterans campaign). Did Kerry ever release all his medical records?