For GOP only

[southsider2k5]

Dobbs Hates McCain and Bush cause they are too easy on immigrants.

 

You'd have to go back to Checkpoint Charile to find someone who was hard enough on immigrants for Dobbs sake.

[SpringfieldFan]

You'd have to go back to Checkpoint Charile to find someone who was hard enough on immigrants for Dobbs sake.

 

Can we clear this Dobbs/immigration issue up for me here? Is Dobbs anti-immigrant or anti illegal immigrant? Do we have quotes from him where he has come down on legal immigrants? I just wanted to know because I have been hearing these "Dobbs hates immigrants" sentiments more lately.

 

Thx,

SFF

Edited June 15, 2008 by SpringfieldFan

[lostfan]

Can we clear this Dobbs/immigration issue up for me here? Is Dobbs anti-immigrant or anti illegal immigrant? Do we have quotes from him where he has come down on legal immigrants? I just wanted to know because I have been hearing these "Dobbs hates immigrants" sentiments more lately.

 

Thx,

SFF

Illegal immigrants, it's just that his stance on it is uber-conservative and he even makes a good number of conservatives look soft by comparison. He spends quite a bit of time railing about how terrible illegal immigration is (and the immigrants themselves, more or less by extension) and he is pretty much opposed to anything short of rounding them all back up, sending them back to Mexico, and sealing off Mexico with a giant plastic dome to prevent any more from ever coming here.

 

I exaggerate, but only a little.

Edited June 15, 2008 by lostfan

[SpringfieldFan]

Illegal immigrants, it's just that his stance on it is uber-conservative and he even makes a good number of conservatives look soft by comparison. He spends quite a bit of time railing about how terrible illegal immigration is (and the immigrants themselves, more or less by extension) and he is pretty much opposed to anything short of rounding them all back up, sending them back to Mexico, and sealing off Mexico with a giant plastic dome to prevent any more from ever coming here.

 

I exaggerate, but only a little.

 

Gotcha - thanks, LF. I suppose it goes back the the old question of the "rule of law" vs. compassion in government policy. Tough one to answer.

 

SFF

[southsider2k5]

This is really been undercovered in my opinion. There is a straight line from these people to a guy who could be President of the United States of America, not to mention lots of money being involved here. This has hardly been talked about at all in the media. Even if you ignore the obvious slant of the article, the meat of it is pretty important (then again their definition of ordinary property owners, would be the Dem's definition of "rich" but that is another story.) We have money essentially going from CEO's directly to Senators (the dismissal of 5 digits worth of fees, or even $75,000 in Dodd's case!) who then in term have pushed for the government to pick up their losses. Not only that, but this same CEO who made the phone call ended up on the VP search committee team before his past got seriously questioned. This is influence peddling on a Chicago type scale going on right under our nose.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/...rs-loan-scandal

 

WaPo Editorial Pulls Some Punches on Dem Senators' Loan Scandal

Photo of Ken Shepherd.

By Ken Shepherd | June 17, 2008 - 11:23 ET

 

Townhall.com's Amanda Carpenter rips into the Washington Post today over its editorial about Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan (N.D.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.) and their cozy arrangement for mortgage refinances with Countrywide.

 

For some background, check out my June 13 blog on ABCNews.com's treatment of the story.

 

I'll let Carpenter take it from here (emphasis mine):

 

When I read this I assumed the Washington Post editorial team was being snarky:

 

SEEKING TO refinance his Delaware beach house in 2004, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) did what any ordinary property owner in his position would have done. On the advice of his friend James A. Johnson, who also happened to be the former chief executive officer of mortgage giant Fannie Mae, he called Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide Financial. Soon Mr. Conrad had a $1.07 million loan -- at a discount, personally ordered for him by Mr. Mozilo, of $10,500 in fees.

 

I was wrong.

 

Apparently, the WaPo editorial staff thinks "ordinary property owners" own beach houses. And that "ordinary property owners" nonchalantly phone the CEO of the largest mortgage lender in the nation for loan advice.

 

And oh, yes, there's more. This is when I knew the Post wasn't joshing me. "It's worth figuring out exactly what is, and is not, wrong with this kind of help," the editorial said.

 

Yes, I'd say it's "worth figuring out." Especially because as Chair of the Senate Banking Committee who has jurisdiction over housing issues, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), who received a $75,000 VIP Countrywide discount outside of the normal underwriting process on his home loans, is pushing a bill to require the government to buy up to $300 billion, yes, $300 BILLION, in bad loans---mostly from Countrywide!--at this very moment.

[kapkomet]

This is really been undercovered in my opinion. There is a straight line from these people to a guy who could be President of the United States of America, not to mention lots of money being involved here. This has hardly been talked about at all in the media. Even if you ignore the obvious slant of the article, the meat of it is pretty important (then again their definition of ordinary property owners, would be the Dem's definition of "rich" but that is another story.) We have money essentially going from CEO's directly to Senators (the dismissal of 5 digits worth of fees, or even $75,000 in Dodd's case!) who then in term have pushed for the government to pick up their losses. Not only that, but this same CEO who made the phone call ended up on the VP search committee team before his past got seriously questioned. This is influence peddling on a Chicago type scale going on right under our nose.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/...rs-loan-scandal

To me, this is the perfect example of "media bias", because if this were a Republican, it would be front page news everywhere, because those old coots are taking advantage of the rich inner workings in Washington!

 

By the way, I guarantee that there's more then the Democrats mentioned in this - probably quite a few ®'s in there too... but if the line is easier to trace to a Democrat, it will not gain that much traction in the media.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...0,7766785.story

 

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

June 16, 2008

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

 

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

 

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

 

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

 

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

 

California's War Dead

Profiles of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus reactions from readers.

Browse by: Age, Cemetery, Country of Birth, High School, Hometown, Number of Children, ...

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

 

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

 

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

 

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

 

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

 

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

 

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

 

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

 

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

 

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

[Controlled Chaos]

To me, this is the perfect example of "media bias", because if this were a Republican, it would be front page news everywhere, because those old coots are taking advantage of the rich inner workings in Washington!

 

By the way, I guarantee that there's more then the Democrats mentioned in this - probably quite a few ®'s in there too... but if the line is easier to trace to a Democrat, it will not gain that much traction in the media.

http://www.townhall.com/video/TheFivewithA...1450_061708Dodd

[mr_genius]

Hmmm, wonder why all the Dems are so pro-bailout... oh yes, because they are all neck deep in investments in predatory lending. what a bunch of frauds.

[Balta1701]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...0,7766785.story

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

 

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Now this is one I have to challenge on the facts. You can dispute the contentions of the Phase 2 report on the facts if you want (I personally feel it didn't go far enough looking in to the Office of Special Plans's work), but challenging it by pointing at the fact that those 2 reports found no problems with what the politicians were doing is simply outright deception on the part of the author if she's aware of it and foolishness on her part if she's not, because by rule both of the reports were simply prohibited from looking in to that question. Here's the executive order creating the Robb-Silberman commission...it is tasked quite specifically with only looking at the quality of the work of the intelligence community, not with looking in to any issues with regards to whether or not statements and actions of officials were based in fact. The closest they got was a fairly detailed discussion of how the political pressures of the situation may well have indirectly affected the work of the intelligence analysts.

 

Similarly, the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report did not look at any issues beyond complaints of direct political pressure in terms of the politics of the war. They punted on that until Phase 2, which it seemed clear they were hoping would never get completed. There has only been 1 single report which has in any way, shape, or form looked at the question of the public campaign to sell the war and whether or not it was based in facts. That was the Phase 2 report just released.

[southsider2k5]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008...dsons_moun.html

 

Rep. Richardson's Mounting Mortgage Disaster

 

The tale of Rep. Laura Richardson's (D-Calif.) home foreclosure just keeps getting worse.

 

Despite the congresswoman's claim that her second home in Sacramento (which she bought when she was a state assemblywoman) was not in foreclosure and that the bank had not seized it, published reports suggest otherwise.

 

The Los Angeles-based Daily Breeze newspaper reports that Richardson defaulted on her mortgage, failed to pay $9,000 worth of property taxes and did, in fact, have her home seized by the bank. Her house, which she reportedly bought for $535,000 in January 2007, was sold at a public auction on May 7 for $388,000, reports the Daily Breeze. (Read the entire story here.)

 

The Capitol Weekly newspaper, which originally reported the story, also suggests in this story that Richardson was not telling the truth in her statement released last night in which she denied the home foreclosure.

 

Richardson was clearly eager to get to Washington. At the time she was falling behind on her mortgage payments, Richardson loaned her campaign more than $60,000 to win her hotly contested special election race last year.

 

The broker who bought Richardson's three-bedroom home tells the Wall Street Journal the congresswoman "walked away from the property. I would be happy to resell her the home for the $535,000." (The price she paid for it.)

 

No wonder Richardson skipped this year's big vote on the Foreclosure Prevention Act.

[Controlled Chaos]

Paying Fathers to be Fathers?

Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 17, 2008 at 6:19 am

 

I realize that Democrats want government to rule our lives -- to be in every aspect of our daily routine -- at the expense of our hard-earned tax dollars. They believe that "government" is some sort of separate being that should "care" for us, but they forget that government has no money of its own. Nothing is free, and when the government does something to "help," that money is coming from our pockets.

 

Now, ultra liberal Barack Obama wants the government to pay fathers for being fathers. That's right, instead of expecting fathers to have common sense to do the right thing in raising families, Obama wants the government to give the father a payment. As the father of two, and the son of a single parent, I find this proposal to be outrageous. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. I have no desire whatsoever to pay even more taxes just to get some 18-year-old punk to act like a father.

 

 

In a Father's Day speech, Obama said the following:

 

We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after -- programs that have helped increase father involvement, women's employment, and children's readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.

 

Letting this passage soak in and reading other parts of his speech, you see just how liberal and on the far left fringe Obama is. Leading up to the comments above, Obama said, "Because if fathers are doing their part ... then our government should meet them halfway."

 

What in the world is he saying? I'll tell you... he's saying that if a father does what he is supposed to be doing, he should get taxpayer-funded benefits. This is ridiculous! Let's see an "Obama" example.... A father is ordered by the court to pay child support. The father complies with the law, and now part of my paycheck is supposed to be forwarded to this guy simply because he is obeying the law? What kind of sense does that make?

 

I understand that lower-income families have it tough. But tough times do not mean that people should get a break from doing stupid things. My father died when I was 15. My sisters were 13 and 6. My mother, who had no college education or regular job at the time, was thrust instantly into the role of breadwinner. She not only raised us and provided for us, she continued her education along the way. She didn't need the government to tell her what her responsibilities were or how to be a good parent.

 

The black community has an absolutely dismal rate of families with no fathers, but it is up to the individuals to do what is right and change that mentality. They should not be paid by the government to exercise common sense and provide for their children. It is the community that has been accepting this behavior, and it is the community that must change. And it can change without my tax money.

 

____________________________

 

I will say I'm glad Obama finally discussed what I feel is one of the biggest contributing factors in the degradation of our society. Children born out of wedlock. It's a problem of epic proportions in the black community. A white politician can't touch the subject for fear of being deemed a racist no matter how careful he chooses his words...his career would most likely be in jeopardy. Even a celebrity figure such as Bill Cosby was deemed by some a racist against his own race for confronting the black community regarding poor parenting, rampant out-of-wedlock births and high dropout and crime rates. Accountability is a bad word for leaders such as Jesse and Al. It seems at some of the churches we've seen recently, preaching responsibility comes far and few between preaching divide.

 

The are many in the black community who follow Obama because they feel they can relate to him. I'm not particularly surprised that part of his solution is to throw money at the problem, but at least the issue was acknowledged. I hope people take his words to heart and hear the important part of his message. With the stage he currently has he can do a huge service to the community.

[lostfan]

I will say I'm glad Obama finally discussed what I feel is one of the biggest contributing factors in the degradation of our society. Children born out of wedlock. It's a problem of epic proportions in the black community. A white politician can't touch the subject for fear of being deemed a racist no matter how careful he chooses his words...his career would most likely be in jeopardy. Even a celebrity figure such as Bill Cosby was deemed by some a racist against his own race for confronting the black community regarding poor parenting, rampant out-of-wedlock births and high dropout and crime rates. Accountability is a bad word for leaders such as Jesse and Al. It seems at some of the churches we've seen recently, preaching responsibility comes far and few between preaching divide.

 

The are many in the black community who follow Obama because they feel they can relate to him. I'm not particularly surprised that part of his solution is to throw money at the problem, but at least the issue was acknowledged. I hope people take his words to heart and hear the important part of his message. With the stage he currently has he can do a huge service to the community.

The thing about Cosby is that even though he was 100% right and meant well, he came across as old, out of touch, and snobbish. So nobody really listened, the only people that paid attention were the people that already knew, the people who needed to hear it and heed it didn't. In effect, he was preaching to the choir.

 

I do agree though, I don't necessarily like Obama's solution, but at least he is giving the problem some attention, and in the absence of any real leadership in the black community (Sharpton, Jackson etc. are NOT leaders and Obama is the closest thing to that in a LONG time) it's been severely lacking, and has just been allowed to fester.

 

BTW: I would say a good half my friends I grew up with/went to h.s. with fall into one of the following categories (and maybe more than half): never met their father, don't know who their father is or haven't seen him in years, know their father but don't care because they hardly ever see him. The lucky ones with unmarried parents still have some kind of decent relationship with their father but they're deep in the minority.

Edited June 18, 2008 by lostfan

[Cknolls]

Only one Marine left to be cleared in the Murtha Massacre Hoax. What a piece of S*** he is for smearing these Marines. Retire and suck the teat of the U.S taxpayers you old bag of S***.

[EvilMonkey]

Only one Marine left to be cleared in the Murtha Massacre Hoax. What a piece of S*** he is for smearing these Marines. Retire and suck the teat of the U.S taxpayers you old bag of S***.

And will Jack Murtha ever say he is sorry for calling them murderers? Um, no.

[BearSox]

Anyone hear Al Gore's endorsement speech for Obama the other day? My god, this guy is nuts! He practically blamed everything wrong in the entire world on Bush getting elected over him.

[mr_genius]

Anyone hear Al Gore's endorsement speech for Obama the other day? My god, this guy is nuts! He practically blamed everything wrong in the entire world on Bush getting elected over him.

 

 

Bearsox, I came across this website the other day. I think you might find it hilarious.

 

www.Goracle.org

[mr_genius]

Only one Marine left to be cleared in the Murtha Massacre Hoax. What a piece of S*** he is for smearing these Marines. Retire and suck the teat of the U.S taxpayers you old bag of S***.

 

The MSM owes them a lot of press to clear their names. The NY Times and such has basically tried and convicted them as mass murderers in the media.

[southsider2k5]

The MSM owes them a lot of press to clear their names. The NY Times and such has basically tried and convicted them as mass murderers in the media.

 

The Trib had the story as a two paragraph mention on page 11.

[Balta1701]

You see, occasionally I do post things in this thread that are worthy of it...

House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

 

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.

 

...

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling

 

1115

 

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

Doesn't seem like this was anything more than one person's opinion, but pretty silly.

[DrunkBomber]

Paying Fathers to be Fathers?

Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 17, 2008 at 6:19 am

 

I realize that Democrats want government to rule our lives -- to be in every aspect of our daily routine -- at the expense of our hard-earned tax dollars. They believe that "government" is some sort of separate being that should "care" for us, but they forget that government has no money of its own. Nothing is free, and when the government does something to "help," that money is coming from our pockets.

 

Now, ultra liberal Barack Obama wants the government to pay fathers for being fathers. That's right, instead of expecting fathers to have common sense to do the right thing in raising families, Obama wants the government to give the father a payment. As the father of two, and the son of a single parent, I find this proposal to be outrageous. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. I have no desire whatsoever to pay even more taxes just to get some 18-year-old punk to act like a father.

 

 

In a Father's Day speech, Obama said the following:

 

We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after -- programs that have helped increase father involvement, women's employment, and children's readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.

 

Letting this passage soak in and reading other parts of his speech, you see just how liberal and on the far left fringe Obama is. Leading up to the comments above, Obama said, "Because if fathers are doing their part ... then our government should meet them halfway."

 

What in the world is he saying? I'll tell you... he's saying that if a father does what he is supposed to be doing, he should get taxpayer-funded benefits. This is ridiculous! Let's see an "Obama" example.... A father is ordered by the court to pay child support. The father complies with the law, and now part of my paycheck is supposed to be forwarded to this guy simply because he is obeying the law? What kind of sense does that make?

 

I understand that lower-income families have it tough. But tough times do not mean that people should get a break from doing stupid things. My father died when I was 15. My sisters were 13 and 6. My mother, who had no college education or regular job at the time, was thrust instantly into the role of breadwinner. She not only raised us and provided for us, she continued her education along the way. She didn't need the government to tell her what her responsibilities were or how to be a good parent.

 

The black community has an absolutely dismal rate of families with no fathers, but it is up to the individuals to do what is right and change that mentality. They should not be paid by the government to exercise common sense and provide for their children. It is the community that has been accepting this behavior, and it is the community that must change. And it can change without my tax money.

 

____________________________

 

I will say I'm glad Obama finally discussed what I feel is one of the biggest contributing factors in the degradation of our society. Children born out of wedlock. It's a problem of epic proportions in the black community. A white politician can't touch the subject for fear of being deemed a racist no matter how careful he chooses his words...his career would most likely be in jeopardy. Even a celebrity figure such as Bill Cosby was deemed by some a racist against his own race for confronting the black community regarding poor parenting, rampant out-of-wedlock births and high dropout and crime rates. Accountability is a bad word for leaders such as Jesse and Al. It seems at some of the churches we've seen recently, preaching responsibility comes far and few between preaching divide.

 

The are many in the black community who follow Obama because they feel they can relate to him. I'm not particularly surprised that part of his solution is to throw money at the problem, but at least the issue was acknowledged. I hope people take his words to heart and hear the important part of his message. With the stage he currently has he can do a huge service to the community.

Ill tell you guy that is a huge advocate of this plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BearSox]

Bearsox, I came across this website the other day. I think you might find it hilarious.

 

www.Goracle.org

oh man, what a great site. I liked the hall of saints.

[BearSox]

Only one Marine left to be cleared in the Murtha Massacre Hoax. What a piece of S*** he is for smearing these Marines. Retire and suck the teat of the U.S taxpayers you old bag of S***.

the sad thing is that nothing happens to him for smearing the marines.

[southsider2k5]

This is just too much... the Chair of the Senate Banking committee has no idea where interest rates are...

 

http://www.thenextright.com/soren-dayton/s...-interest-rates

[Cknolls]

This is just too much... the Chair of the Senate Banking committee has no idea where interest rates are...

 

http://www.thenextright.com/soren-dayton/s...-interest-rates

 

 

He should be investigated and recuse himself from the committee that will vote on the Fannie Mae give-a-way in minutes. WHAT A JOKE! But he's a donkey so the same rules do not apply. Everyone talks about Enron. What about the Fannie Mae accounting debacle. Raines, Johnson, Gorelick. How much did they pocket from the "accounting errors"? Over $100 million dollars. I'm sure the investigations will happen when Barry brings change to Washington; and then monkeys will fly from you know where.