Comments Posted By Patrick
Displaying 21 To 26 Of 26 Comments
THE MIND BLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
And I see Scrapiron joins in with the right-wing moonbat theories.
Comment Posted By Patrick On 23.05.2006 @ 20:14
LOST: THE TRUTH ABOUT SADDAM AND NIGER URANIUM
Great work!
Comment Posted By Patrick On 19.07.2006 @ 02:16
[url=http://kivhtkyv.com/ylhh/qxco.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://dwfdovse.com/pqho/pjyw.html]Cool site[/url]
PLAYOFF PREVIEW: MY BELOVEDS VS. CAROLINA
Well, you were WAY OFF, weren't you. I mean, the spread was eight points, not six. What a buffoon!
Peanut, I mean. Two touchdowns over his head. And the long pass that he could have knocked down, but tried to intercept and got outwrestled for.
I didn't know the Cubs played football, too! Wait til next year.
Comment Posted By Patrick On 15.01.2006 @ 23:30
Interesting argument, but I would have taken a different route. There are those who may agree with you, but suggest that pushing the issue to the forefront may elevate pork as a hot button issue. After all, $30 billion saved is $30 billion saved. Right? It is far better to spend $30 billion helping the people of New Orleans than to build a road for 500 people in Alaska. Right?
It occurs to me that the porkbuster idea is simply trading one pork project for another. Does anyone honestly believe that the government will efficiently and fairly distribute those funds in the Gulf? If we spend our money on transportation we at least have a bridge, road, bike trail, whatever to show for it.
Comment Posted By Patrick On 18.10.2005 @ 12:46
WHAT'S TO BE DONE WITH DURBIN?
Let's reference the Senate website:
"CensureLess severe than expulsion, a censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) does not remove a senator from office. It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate. In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson – the first and only time the Senate censured a president. Since 1789 the Senate has censured nine of its members."
A "formal statement of disapproval" is too strong for a Senator who has publicly equated our troops with the most murderous regimes ever to inhabit the planet? Sorry, but I disagree. It's not a free speech issue, it's being used as grist in the jihadist mill and will certainly be used against the US military members in harm's way.
Comment Posted By Patrick On 19.06.2005 @ 10:03
No a supreme court justice is not needed to swear in the President. There are at least three that I know of, one if Washington there was no supreme court yet and I think Truman or Eisenhower used his father which was a Justice of the Peace. The third was Johnson after Kennedy was killed. All you need is some type of Judge to swear you in.
Comment Posted By Patrick On 16.04.2005 @ 00:23
