http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html)
One more sign this administration just doesn't give a shtein.
I would have been shocked if he hadn't pardoned him.
Oh oh no, no. He still has the conviction on his record and has to pay the 250k fine. But he won't do any jail time, so it's not a full on pardon.
Obviously this was coming, but I will seriously hold a parade down Broad St. when Bush dies. I don't care if it's 50 years from now, he's a disgrace to this country.
I figured he'd wait till he was nearly out of office, really this is a sign he doesnt give a shtein
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 02, 2007, 06:33:19 PM
I figured he'd wait till he was nearly out of office, really this is a sign he doesnt give a shtein
He couldn't because of the jail time looming fairly quickly. He waited it out until now to see if he could get away without commuting the sentence.
Commuting the sentence rather than issuing a full pardon is Bush trying to please both sides: there is still a punishment for the crime (paid for by some oil company, no doubt), but Libby will not have to serve as a girlfriend to an inmate named Bubba.
Another brick in the wall.
I expected and don't agree with W and his decision. I would love to see overall each president's pardons over the last twenty years and what crooks have been set free, it would be interesting.
I wish i knew of a convenient place where one could go, and say type in a term and find out all kinds of things about that term. I bet someone could make a lot of money if they invented something like that.
I know I should of looked before I posted, interesting list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_a_United_States_president
Quote from: Wingspan on July 02, 2007, 07:29:51 PM
I wish i knew of a convenient place where one could go, and say type in a term and find out all kinds of things about that term. I bet someone could make a lot of money if they invented something like that.
Ha Ha Very funny :flipoff yeah if something like that exists
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/ellroon/king_george2.jpg)
Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 02, 2007, 07:30:05 PM
I know I should of looked before I posted, interesting list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_a_United_States_president
Clinton's kicking Bush's ass. Bush needs to step up and pardon some real felons. He's been too busy bombing brown people.
Which one of you idiots wrote this one:
QuoteCurt Heykants - Belched during dinner while in the company of Clinton. Clinton immediately accepted Heykants request of "Pardon me"
this actually might have been the best move of the bush presidency...this poor guy took the fall for the white house....theres no way bush should have let him spend one second in prison
Hey if we use GOP tactics we would say that the Bush administration is in favor of outing CIA agents!
But really he was a fall guy for some thing larger that shows they're in favor of doing just about anything as a means to an end.
Really, what's the point of a fall guy, if he doesn't "fall".
Might as well just said outright, yeah, we outed her because her husband pissed us off. farg you. Executive privilege.
by all accounts libby is a decent guy that got caught up with the wrong people...he didnt out plame he lied on the stand about stuff not having much to do with the whole outting controversy...the guy didnt belong in jail...and that is coming from someone who is as left as it gets
Quote from: MadMarchHare on July 02, 2007, 10:14:16 PM
Really, what's the point of a fall guy, if he doesn't "fall".
He provided at least some use: even a lousy story like this is better for the White House than coverage of Iraq
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 02, 2007, 10:25:06 PM
by all accounts libby is a decent guy that got caught up with the wrong people...he didnt out plame he lied on the stand about stuff not having much to do with the whole outting controversy...the guy didnt belong in jail...and that is coming from someone who is as left as it gets
Libby clearly lied to protect Bush, and was chosen to be the man thrown under the bus. Then he gets "commuted" immediately after losing appeal. Whether he's a nice guy or not, who farging cares? The fact that the administration doesn't give two shteins about public opinion or outrage is very sobering.
This kind of shtein could bury the GOP in the 2008 election. Why doesn't that bother the administration?
Because they don't give a shtein?
Or because the election isn't relevent?
GOP Pundits are using the current immigration Bush / Ted Kennedy camio to distance themselves. They disagree with him on immigration seeee! They're Different!
Quote from: MadMarchHare on July 02, 2007, 10:51:20 PM
This kind of shtein could bury the GOP in the 2008 election. Why doesn't that bother the administration?
There are two seasons of American Idol between now and then. Americans are dumb and will forget about this by the end of the week.
Hypocritical fun:
Quote"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
How many sentences has Hillary commuted in her time as a Senator for the State of New York?
I see - so you're assuming that she feels the same way about all the people her husband pardoned (http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm) and that she's not a ridiculous hypocrite?
Oh, and here all all the commutations also: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clinton_comm.htm
Bush lovers can't stand an unhappy chimp tale without turning it into a Clinton hatefest. Predictable and pathetic. Kinda boring too..don't know why I bother to point it out.
...and Clinton lovers ignore his negatives and make it sound like no precedent has taken place for any of the multitude of zesty cronyism happenings during the Bush administration.
At least IGY is keeping it real here. Clinton did the same thing and pardoned buddies that took the fall for his illegal dealings. Why shouldn't Bush do the same?
Every time Bush does something stupid, you talk Clinton. Good for you.
Dick Cheney is a better VP than Aaron Burr. At least the guy Cheney shot recovered...
Quote from: Diomedes on July 03, 2007, 03:18:47 PM
Every time Bush does something stupid, you talk Clinton. Good for you.
Commuting Libby's sentence is a relative non-issue amongst the many stupid somethings done under Bush's watch. The only reason I find to rebut at all is that leftist Bush haters find any excuse to make something out of nothing.
There are two reasons you "rebut." 1.) you post way too much and 2.) you can't stand to let even an accurate criticism of your guy pass without lobbing a shot at the other side.
you suck. post less.
I think the Clinton comment came after Mrs. Clinton made the comment and he brought up how she is a hypocrite. but bash on baby, bash on.
Quote from: Diomedes on July 03, 2007, 03:35:34 PM
There are two reasons you "rebut." 1.) you post way too much and 2.) you can't stand to let even an accurate criticism of your guy pass without lobbing a shot at the other side.
you suck. post less.
Not for nothing, but...
Quote
Diomedes
Resident Iconoclast
Inept Security Guard
Posts: 12520
I guess I simply don't understand why the blinders are automatically turned on when a douche bag politician slightly more aligned with your own personal beliefs does something stupid/unethical, but when the same type of thing is done by another douche bag politician with which you have even less in common, it's an outrage.
Partisan politics suck, and most of you are part of the problem.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 03, 2007, 03:54:41 PM
Partisan politics suck, and most of you are part of the problem.
Truth.
Bill Clinton explains pardons/commutations better than I do (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=66ba82eaf117b24b&ex=1183521600). Read and learn, leftists and rightist alike.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on July 02, 2007, 10:14:16 PM
Really, what's the point of a fall guy, if he doesn't "fall".
Might as well just said outright, yeah, we outed her because her husband pissed us off. farg you. Executive privilege.
I Love This Post.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 03, 2007, 03:54:41 PM
I guess I simply don't understand why the blinders are automatically turned on when a douche bag politician slightly more aligned with your own personal beliefs does something stupid/unethical, but when the same type of thing is done by another douche bag politician with which you have even less in common, it's an outrage.
Take the self reflection to your therapist, hippy.
There's something about that post that is so fantastic and dodging-the-subject that it makes me say, "post of the day".
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 03, 2007, 03:54:41 PM
I guess I simply don't understand why the blinders are automatically turned on when a douche bag politician slightly more aligned with your own personal beliefs does something stupid/unethical, but when the same type of thing is done by another douche bag politician with which you have even less in common, it's an outrage.
Partisan politics suck, and most of you are part of the problem.
It's not really partisan politics, at least for me. But I never had a doubt Clinton would abdicate.
Really, what's the point of a fall guy, if he doesn't "fall".
Might as well just said outright, yeah, we outed her because her husband pissed us off. farg you. Executive privilege.
because libby isnt the one that should fall...he didnt out plame...he lied on the stand about semi related matters
everyone is missing the point here...and that is that bush and cheyney are the ones who should be in jail...not some schlock named scooter
Partisan politics suck, and most of you are part of the problem
lolol...worst post ever?
like youre some bastion of the non partison movement...you are as scary as they come...plus believing in something that YOU dont agree with doesnt make someone partison...your money grubbing everyone in the world can go to hell except me attitude almost makes you the poster child for the conservative right...disagree with others if you choose but dont pull out some holier than thou card...it makes you look silly
We're not missing the point. You must be pretty damned idealistic to think that Bush Cheney Rove would ever catch shtein for this. Like every other administration, someone unimportant gets tossed under the bus.
What's unique in this case is that Libby got his "commutation" so quickly. Usually they wait til the end of term and sneak it in. Like Clinton did. And FF is right, every president has pulled this shtein, just not typically in the middle of their term.
Ultimately, Bill's right. Come Monday, most Americans won't even remember this happened. Or care.
again none of that matters...we all know what pardons are when they happen and that they have happened before...
bottom line is that it would have been a disgrace if libby spent one minute in jail for those devils in the white house
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 04, 2007, 09:04:17 AM
Partisan politics suck, and most of you are part of the problem
lolol...worst post ever?
like youre some bastion of the non partison movement...you are as scary as they come...plus believing in something that YOU dont agree with doesnt make someone partison...your money grubbing everyone in the world can go to hell except me attitude almost makes you the poster child for the conservative right...disagree with others if you choose but dont pull out some holier than thou card...it makes you look silly
Fact: I'm always quick to acknowledge the zesty things that "mainstream" Republicans do, and I'm simply and regularly pointing out the fact that the leftist majority on this board is quite partisan when it comes to ethical issues with dickbag politicians.
I'm not sure if your hit-or-miss style is better or worse than the more predictable responses, but on this specific issue, it's certainly more correct than most. Gold star, even if you hilariously and truly believe that you care about yourself any less than me.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on July 04, 2007, 09:12:59 AM
We're not missing the point. You must be pretty damned idealistic to think that Bush Cheney Rove would ever catch shtein for this. Like every other administration, someone unimportant gets tossed under the bus.
Idealism is wonderful for people that hate realism and truth, though. Don't shatter their dreams.
This is exactly what I've been trying to say. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070705/cm_rcp/libbys_punishment_worse_than_t)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1260/731154861_3ae3df38a8.jpg?v=0)
We had a budget surplus?
Quote from: phillymic2000 on July 07, 2007, 07:13:55 PM
We had a budget surplus?
Damn straight. (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/)
Democratic President + Republican Congress = Gridlock = Government wastes less money = WIN
I hate budget surpluses because idle capital is just sitting in the government coffers and doing nothing. What the government should aim for is a balanced budget so more capital is available for investment.
But anyways, I like the commutation. First, this whole matter should have never involved a special prosecutor or any charges on Libby. Fitzgerald knew that Armitage informed the media about Valerie Plame (not a covert CIA operative under the applicable statute -- plus, even if she regards herself as a covert CIA operative she sure does like to expose herself to numerous media outlets and pose for Vanity Fair) yet Armitage was never charged with "leaking a CIA operative" or trying to prosecute him under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Why? He has no connection to the Bush Administration and has been in the State Department since, I think, the Clinton Administration. Plus, he's a detractor from the War in Iraq. It wouldn't make for a very compelling news story.
Secondly, Libby was found guilty for obstruction of justice and perjury. Fine. It is reasonable for the jury to conclude based on the evidence presented. However, first honestly evaluate the evidence. The question that got him in hot water was "when did you first become aware of Valerie Plame Wilson?" and he made a statement that was inconsistent with what a few news reporters and journalists said (meaning he gave one approximate date and the other journalists gave another). There was no tangible evidence like written transcripts or voice recordings -- just a bunch of fuzzy memories and a "he said she said" case. Mind you these conversations happened years ago as well. I guess the journalists' testimony corroborated with each other and the jury put great weight on that.
Considering this case involved the deprivation of liberty, the jury had to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby purposefully made inconsistent statements (i.e. he lied). I think it would be tough to conclude based on the evidence that he purposefully made misleading statements beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable to conclude that, however? Maybe. Reasonable people could disagree.
But then the judge, who is charged with imposing the sentence, decided to throw the book at Libby. He was within the sentencing guidelines promulgated by Congress, but he chose the maximum. That is why saying Bush doesn't respect the jury's decision is disingenuous -- he did respect it. The jury concluded Libby was guilty and Libby is still guilty of those crimes. The jury is charged with making a determination of guilt or innocence. It is the duty of the judge to impose a sentence based on that guilt or innocence determination. Sometimes a judge will ask for the jury's recommendation as to a sentence, but the judge is in no way compelled to follow it. Often times, the judge doesn't give a poo as to what the jury thinks in terms of sentencing. Bush thought the jurist who imposed the sentence was harsh, so he commuted it.
Libby, after this criminalization of politics, will pay a $250,000 fine, serve 2 years probation, and most likely will lose his livelihood (his law license). I think that is more than enough punishment for this enormous waste of time. In fact, I would recommend a full pardon to discourage these witch hunts in the future.
And the only reason people bring up Clinton pardoning so many individuals (140 on his last day in office) is because of all the lunatics on the Left who are going nuts over this. It is an enormous double standard that just infuriates people who actually make an effort to follow politics honestly. What is more infuriating is that those politicians keep misrepresenting what this case really was about. However, no one gets upset when they lie to the American people. It doesn't go towards the merits of this particular case, but it is worth pointing out to establish the character of all the others who decided to do a 180 right now and further delineates the bitter partisanship in this country.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 07, 2007, 07:36:49 PM
Democratic President + Republican Congress = Gridlock = Government wastes less money = WIN
Winner! Same goes for a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.
It's a sad commentary that political gridlock is the best case scenario.
Quote from: Phanatic on July 08, 2007, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 07, 2007, 07:36:49 PM
Democratic President + Republican Congress = Gridlock = Government wastes less money = WIN
Winner! Same goes for a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.
It hasn't seemed to work out that way. Both Reagan and W overspent on stupid shtein, and the Congress didn't stop them.
Quote from: Eaglez on July 07, 2007, 09:12:48 PM
I hate budget surpluses because idle capital is just sitting in the government coffers and doing nothing. What the government should aim for is a balanced budget so more capital is available for investment.
Did you forget our $8 trillion debt? Perhaps we should make some payments on that?
Quote from: Cerevant on July 09, 2007, 11:20:14 AM
Did you forget our $8 trillion debt? Perhaps we should make some payments on that?
?
Aren't you a Canadian now?
Quote from: Cerevant on July 09, 2007, 11:20:14 AM
Quote from: Eaglez on July 07, 2007, 09:12:48 PM
I hate budget surpluses because idle capital is just sitting in the government coffers and doing nothing. What the government should aim for is a balanced budget so more capital is available for investment.
Did you forget our $8 trillion debt? Perhaps we should make some payments on that?
(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m267/jeepwrang1994/bigpoop.gif)
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 09, 2007, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: Cerevant on July 09, 2007, 11:20:14 AM
Did you forget our $8 trillion debt? Perhaps we should make some payments on that?
?
Aren't you a Canadian now?
Living in Canada does not equal being Canadian. I still carry a US passport, and I still have to pay farging US taxes.
If Giuliani gets elected, or if Bush refuses to abdicate, that will very likely change.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 08, 2007, 06:50:18 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on July 08, 2007, 10:05:45 AM
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 07, 2007, 07:36:49 PM
Democratic President + Republican Congress = Gridlock = Government wastes less money = WIN
Winner! Same goes for a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.
It hasn't seemed to work out that way. Both Reagan and W overspent on stupid shtein, and the Congress didn't stop them.
Reagan had the opposite Congress to deal with but the majority of W's spending was all GOP for 6 years.
Let's just say the new Congressional majority isn't exactly lighting the world on fire.
Actually, nm.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 09, 2007, 11:20:14 AM
Quote from: Eaglez on July 07, 2007, 09:12:48 PM
I hate budget surpluses because idle capital is just sitting in the government coffers and doing nothing. What the government should aim for is a balanced budget so more capital is available for investment.
Did you forget our $8 trillion debt? Perhaps we should make some payments on that?
the 8 trillion figure reflects private debt and not all federal shortfalls. Tell your neighbor to stop making minimum payments and aim to live below their means. If the federal government can maintain a balanced budget, cut pork, stop corporate welfare and funding programs that private foundations can do a better job at providing, curb earmarks, etc. then I will be happy. Government should not take in more in taxes than it allocates in spending. If it was up to me, I would return the notion that the federal government is a government of enumerated powers and that the language of the Constitution should be narrowly construed given the history of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the presence of language in the Constitution stating that the federal government is a government of "enumerated powers" and the presence of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Right now, I like Giuliani out of the bunch because he is probably the most committed to sound, limited government fiscal policy and free market based reforms. After the reckless spending Congress and the President, I think Giuliani could help clean house and help instill that fiscally responsible message back in Washington.
Unfortunately, he's also a massive douche running solely on leftover patriotism from 9/11.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 11, 2007, 01:45:44 PM
Unfortunately, he's also a massive douche running solely on leftover patriotism from 9/11.
True, plus he is shaky on social issues and I'm not sure what I would get with him in regards to that. But I love his fiscal stance on providing free market solutions for health care and education. He might make a good VP or advisor if a stronger candidate comes about (maybe Thompson, but I have some reservations about him; however, his wife is fargin' smokin')
True, plus he is shaky on social issues
actually its about the only solid ground he stands on
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 11, 2007, 01:57:52 PM
True, plus he is shaky on social issues
actually its about the only solid ground he stands on
Sure, from his previous record its evident on what he thinks about abortion, gay rights, I guess some would clump gun rights in there as well, etc. But he is talking up a game taking contrary positions. He spoke out appointing justices that would take a strict textualist view which may take the abortion debate out of the federal arena and back to the states (where I think it belongs). That's fine. If he decides to take the position of not being an overbearing executive, give the states the discretion afforded to them under the Constitution, and focus on fiscal and military policy, I'd vote for Rudy.
Quote from: Eaglez on July 11, 2007, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on July 09, 2007, 11:20:14 AM
Quote from: Eaglez on July 07, 2007, 09:12:48 PM
I hate budget surpluses because idle capital is just sitting in the government coffers and doing nothing. What the government should aim for is a balanced budget so more capital is available for investment.
Did you forget our $8 trillion debt? Perhaps we should make some payments on that?
the 8 trillion figure reflects private debt and not all federal shortfalls.
Reference? Everywhere I look, I find this number listed as the debt of the government, not private debt. From Wikipedia:
QuoteThe United States public debt, commonly called the national debt, gross federal debt or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. Debt Instruments. As of the end of 2006, the total U.S. federal public debt was $4.9 trillion. This does not include the money owed by states, corporations, or individuals, nor does it include the money owed to Social Security beneficiaries in the future. If intragovernment debt obligations are included, the debt figure rises to $8.7 trillion.
Intragovernment debt = money owed to the Federal Reserve by the US Government.
According to this (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm), the total American debt is $48 trillion.
Hey, but the more the US economy tanks, the more I make, since the US dollar is tanking against foreign currencies and is almost at parity with the Canadian dollar for the first time since 1976.
Interesting. I didn't know that it did not factor in private debt holdings. I always thought the figure that projected close to 8 trillion plus included both (private and public). I stand corrected.
But, again, in order for the government to pay down the debt it needs to institute more fiscal responsibility. And running a surplus does not necessarily mean that surplus will go towards paying down that debt. A surplus is not allocated towards anything -- it just sits there. The federal government, in devising its budget, can allocate tax revenue towards paying down debt. It can be a "government program". So you don't need a surplus to pay down the debt. It can just be a regular budgetary allocation after the federal government does some house keeping and axes worthless agencies and programs.
I didn't say a surplus would be used reduce the debt - I said it should.
As for Giuliani, all the "fiscal responsibility" in the world won't help if you are spending $12 billion/month on the war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/09/national/w124616D88.DTL).
Quote from: Cerevant on July 11, 2007, 03:24:39 PM
I didn't say a surplus would be used reduce the debt - I said it should.
As for Giuliani, all the "fiscal responsibility" in the world won't help if you are spending $12 billion/month on the war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/09/national/w124616D88.DTL).
OK, but I rather have the surplus given back into private hands than sitting in government coffers.
As for Giuliani, maybe... but I don't mind military spending. In fact, it is one of the few legitimate interests the federal government has in terms of spending. There are a lot of federal government programs I would dispose of to hopefully make up for that.
I don't have a problem with defense spending either, if it's not completely wasted.
It's being wasted right now... FYI.
Defense spending could be halved and the U.S. would still be the greatest military power on earth.
Way too much money is spent on war making.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 11, 2007, 03:45:21 PM
I don't have a problem with defense spending either, if it's not completely wasted.
It's being wasted right now... FYI.
True, to a certain extent. I guess I just wouldn't mind if the federal government close to completely concerned itself with military operations and foreign policy. That was the main emphasis of the Articles of Confederation (a loose confederation and the main purpose was to represent the country on the international scene) and while I understand the need of a more centralized federal government for unity and efficiency reasons, I still admire a system where the federal government is more constrained through enumerated powers and the states have wider discretion in setting domestic policy that is tailored to the needs of the constituency of each individual state.
Quote from: Eaglez on July 11, 2007, 06:17:28 PM....and the states have wider discretion in setting domestic policy that is tailored to the needs of the constituency of each individual state.
That would be great if we didn't have the southern states to deal with. But since we do, the only guard against camps for Jews and other so-called undesirables, re-enactment of slavery, re-enslavement of women, etc. is to forcibly maintain at least the appearance of civilization by federal law and occupation when necessary.
Yeah, there are tons of southern states that are pushing for slavery and internment camps to be legalized. You're a farging clown.
That would be great if we didn't have the southern states to deal with. But since we do, the only guard against camps for Jews and other so-called undesirables, re-enactment of slavery, re-enslavement of women, etc. is to forcibly maintain at least the appearance of civilization by federal law and occupation when necessary.
lol...POTY
the south should be released into the atlantic...after romey moves back up here of course
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 12, 2007, 08:13:41 AM
That would be great if we didn't have the southern states to deal with. But since we do, the only guard against camps for Jews and other so-called undesirables, re-enactment of slavery, re-enslavement of women, etc. is to forcibly maintain at least the appearance of civilization by federal law and occupation when necessary.
lol...POTY
the south should be released into the atlantic...after romey moves back up here of course
Thanks, IGY...
Quote from: Eaglez on July 11, 2007, 06:17:28 PM
... I still admire a system where the federal government is more constrained through enumerated powers and the states have wider discretion in setting domestic policy that is tailored to the needs of the constituency of each individual state.
Then vote for Ron Paul, at least he understands that we have no business messing around in Iraq. Giuliani would just love to jump into the Bush power-void and continue the tyranny of fear. I don't agree with everything he believes, but he does not believe that social mores should be legislated at the federal level.
Personally, I don't care what laws they enact in the south as long as they don't violate the right to unhindered inter-state travel. If you don't like it where you are, leave. Social programs could be better tailored to the population, and there would be lest waste on duplicate or conflicting state/federal programs.
The United States is too diverse a population to try and apply the same laws across the board. I prefer the EU model - let each country handle its own population and social programs, while allowing the "federal" body to regulate inter-state commerce, immigration, etc. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's what the Constitution says.
Thanks, IGY...
ooops
It's hilarious how we have the same conversations over and over again here.
BTW, I'd love to see the South released from the North... then you "Northern" ultra-libs (Maryland is still not a Northern state, kids) would see just how many pricks you have up there also.
^^^^^^
self hating southerner
Yeah, because we can't see them for all the southern ultra-conservatives in our faces all the time.
I love New England. Love it. Ten years or so here in Maryland, then I'm moving in with Yeti.
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaaaa. You want to see racism? Move to New England. I'll show you racism.
Did I say 'I love New England because there are no racists?"
No.
I said I love New England.
Suck a fleshpop Micehole.
Well then you're an idiot. New England is the icehole of the Earth. Anyone who would choose this place over any other place should be thrown into traffic.
:CF ... feel the love.
Alright, I'm an idiot. So long as you leave New England we both win.
By the way. You didn't say you love New England because there are no racists. But you HAVE said many times before that you hate the south, that the south should be booted from the country and that you will never go to the south, and the only reason you've ever given was your perception of the south's institutional racism. So I'll let you do the math.
D-
Your 4,000th post since being reset leaves me in mind of Chuggie's recent comment that you're off your game these days.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 12, 2007, 07:31:45 PMHa. Keep it coming, tough guy.
Where you want it? Your tits? Your wife's tits? Your daughter's tits?
Quote from: Diomedes on July 12, 2007, 07:34:46 PM
Where you want it? Your tits? Your wife's tits? Your daughter's tits?
That doesn't even make sense at all. You'd be off your game if you were ever "on" in the first place.
Quote from: Diomedes on July 12, 2007, 07:33:51 PM
D-
Your 4,000th post since being reset leaves me in mind of Chuggie's recent comment that you're off your game these days.
As soon I go looking for the approval of you and hbionic I'll let you know. In the mean time, keep contradicting yourself in your various stances on things. It's a laugh riot.
Quote
Jerome99RIP 07:47:47 PM Posting in Libby pardoned.
Diomedes 07:43:06 PM Posting in Libby pardoned.
This oughta be special.
I was just about to say that I love it when threads like this careen wildly off-topic.
:-D