In-A-Gadda-Levitre

She obstructed justice by removing and hiding files pertaining to the case, and then writing a fraudulent brief. Just because she wasn't charged doesn't mean that she didn't break the law. If Nixon hadn't resigned, things would likely have been much different for Hillary. You don't have to believe it, I'm just saying if she was being confirmed by congress for supreme court, this undoubtedly would come up and I have to believe Zeifman would testify. You think it's all made up?

read the damn article, it's not who she associated with, it's what she did, she broke the law

not like this from when she was on the Watergate team...

never happen, she's got skeletons in the closet

yes, I'm not convinced he will come to Buffalo either, but he might. If the Iggies, the Bucs, the Pack or the G-men offer KC the same or more as the Bills, he would probably pick one of those because of their track record. BUT, if the Bills are the best offer, our improved team might just be the ticket he's looking for.

I'm not praising him at all. I'm saying I can't believe he's demanding a trade because he wants a bigger television audience. IMO, he knows he only has a couple more seasons and he wants to play for a winner. You might not agree, but it's a hell of a lot more satisfaction being in the locker room when your team is winning than it is to be with a perennial loser. He knows KC is in full blown rebuilding mode and he doesn't want to wait until they turn it around. He might prefer the NYG which have both a winning team and a large market, but I just don't buy the idea that the exposure is driving him at this point in his career.

Kansas City Chiefs 2008: 1-4 2007: 4-12 It's not market size, it's being on a winning team. Would he agree to play on the Bills? Hard to say, but the decision would likely be made on whether TG thinks the Bills will go deep in the playoffs rather than how many heads are in their television market.

yeah, I think a lot of the reasons 3rd parties don't have a chance, as well as probably some really good repubs and dems, because of the costs of getting elected. How many can raise the kind of money we're seeing required in '08?

good points... part of the problem is also lack of good solutions by one side or another... healthcare being a good example. Free market solutions haven't worked well enough to maintain costs and there's millions of uninsured citizens who are locked out. So someone like Obama gets a lot of attention when he offers a plan that offers some solutions, but requires more intervention by the government.

there's not a lot about KFBD's list that's subjective. Obama isn't perfect, but he's way better than anyone he's run against. Right now McCain and his campaign are all over the map. Just witness today; Lindsey Graham says McCain will have major economic plans announced in the coming days, his campaign says that's not true and there will be no announcements, then later today, changed their mind again, said there would be new economic plans announced. That's just today, but it shows how much confusion there is in his campaign. He can't raise as much money, he can't draw the crowds, he can't win debates (by much of anyone's vote...), it's pretty clear there is no agreement on much within his campaign, he/his team make critical mistakes at times (i.e. changing his mortgage rescue plan from the banks eating the difference to the taxpayers in 24 hours), he's known as a hothead, etc. etc.,

that's a classic

IMO Joe6P says some pretty off the wall things, and maybe he's full of it, but why can't you just correct him instead of acting 12 years old?

McCain and his campaign have painted themselves into a nasty corner. His campaign's choice to go negative a while back has drummed up crowds, potentially going out of control if McCain didn't try to tamp it down a bit. Obama had to respond in some way, there was no choice or he'd become Kerry redux. Obama would NEVER have issued any negative ads or verbal attacks if he hadn't been provoked. Only normal political jabs, like a third term of Bush, he was wrong about Iraq, etc. The media doesn't like Obama's negativity either, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand he was baited into responding in kind. Now that the negative campaigning has hurt him and the crowds are all fired up, McCain is taking a lot of heat and he has to at least show that he doesn't condone the lies and taunts that his campaign has fueled. If he stops the negative ads and speeches, he'll lose based on the economy. If he defends Obama and tries to shutdown the attacks, he's viewed as weak and loses.

how has Well's Mortgage sub done through all this?

ok, I wasn't sure, hence my question. It's hard to tell which election cycle in Ohio is worse: this year or 2004, based on the allegations, but in both cases, the Secretary of State appears to be the main culprit.

IMO, this is despicable behavior by the OH Sec of State and there is no excuse for her actions. Am I interpreting your reference to the so called voting 'irregularities' implying that they were nonsense and didn't occur? A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County didn't report a 98% turnout, while a Cleveland inner city precinct turned out 7%, tens of thousands of registered democrats weren't purged from the rolls, voting machines were not misallocated, etc. etc. etc. None of that happened?

great article, thanks...

It wasn't a gaffe, he meant it, and I agree with him. Conservatives and hawks might have "called him out", but that hasn't changed his position. He will prepare and meet with people that make the decisions if it looks like it would be beneficial to our national security.

there's a huge difference between without preconditions and without preparation There is no way you can expect a country like Iran to (as an example) shutdown their nuclear research and stop assisting radical militants before you sit down with them. That is so f'ing ridiculous to even think that would work out, ever. It's also highly unlikely that sanctions will force them to concede either, given China and Russia's stance. No, you prepare and do your homework, then try to negotiate (as an example) economic assistance in exchange for some strategic giveback like uranium enrichment. Will it work? Nobody knows yet, but to rattle your sabers or expect them to stop doing the things that you hate before you sit down with their leaders is a fantasy.

I wouldn't begin to judge as to whether the outcome of the election will result in a ban on guns, nor would I venture a guess as to newly appointed SC judges and their potential philosophies. All I meant was the oldest judges are liberal; Justice Stevens is 88 years old and Justice Ginsberg is 75, and based on her frail appearance, it's very possible she will step down. And there have been many rumors that David Souter (69) wants to retire and go back to New Hampshire. So, while a McCain presidency could swing the court conservative, and very likely have the votes to overturn Roe v Wade (again, not that he necessarily would), an Obama victory might keep the status quo for a number of years.

McCain changes homeowner plan oh, that bit about the Lenders eating the difference, that was included by mistake...

no argument there, that's the zen-like epitome of what don't you know and when will you know it. I just expected them to at least act like they heard what the poor sucker was asking.

but you have to admit, McCain could overturn roe v wade if he appointed 1 sc judge, and almost definitely if he appointed 2 not saying he would by the same token, obama could ensure a liberal court for a long time

if you can debunk an aggressive guy like Hannity and take control of the conversation in big chunks, ya I call it pwnd that time. there's kinda partisan and then there's heavy partisan; I'm the former, that guy's the later. Gibbs is in the middle somewhere..

yeah, these guys hit the nail on the head with the candidates evasiveness in answering the damn questions!