John Adams

Sounds just like Tricky Dick.

Why thow him out the window? He was a good coach but hung on to that hat and the Cowboy "clap" for too long.

It's like that in every pool. When the favorites all win--no seed lower than 2 to the Final Four and few upsets throughout this tourney--the pools all look pretty good.

I'm all about Sanjaya. I don't watch the show though--I just vote. If the show rigs him out, that's some serious bullstojan.

I had no income in 1970. I had no house in 1970. I had no car in 1970. I had no phone in 1970. Today, I have a job, house, and car. I feel I'm better off. Other things I didn't have in 1970: my own room, brothers and sisters, a radio, clothing. Sometime in late 1970, I had a heartbeat.

This is a hijack but when discussed before, there was outrage over this too. The way the system works, the president gets to pick federal court judges when there are openings. The only blocking that should take place is for nominees with serious questions. The political wrangling by both sides has left us with a woefully underperforming federal court system. In my area of expertise, patent law, it's all-too-common for a case to drag out for 3-4 years most of which is just plain downtime because the court can't get to things (and rightfully deals with criminal matters before civil). BTW, the Supreme Court nominees got pretty easy pass-throughs last year. There was some political sparring but nothing as stupid as what happened with Thomas.

So what--you're resorting to an argument that goes, "if it's not illegal, it's OK?" That's absurd. I hold people, especially world leaders, to a higher standard. For example: it's not illegal to lie in most cases but it's certainly not right to do so. When a leader does it, he (sometimes) is held accountable. In this case, there seems to be nothing illegal about the firing of the AGs. That being said, firing AGs who are investigating corruption in freinds of W certainly isn't right. And that, Tom, is the sound of the telephone hitting you in the head. I don't give a sh-- about Dem or Republicna on htis issue. It's just not right. The AGs were doing theri jobs--by most accounts doing them with great aplomb--and their reward for that is the highway. It's not illegal but it's not the practice of an administration interested in weeding out corruption. It's at least dirty pool.

The issue is that these AGs all had stellar reviews and at least several of them (Lam in particular) were pursuing targets friendly to Bush. In pursuing their investigations, they were doing their jobs--jobs that it's important to have some degree of political immunity to do correctly. If an AG can't follow corruption leads that lead to the White House, THAT'S a big !@#$ing problem. Imagine if the president--any president--fired every AG who launched an investigation into their friends. Anyway, it's clear that the pressure to fire these 8 AGs came from the White House--perhaps directly from Rove--and if their firing was a reaction to their White House-related investigations, that's the White House tampering in investigations. There's a huge difference between that and wholesale firings that follow an election. I see this as a problem. I'd see it as a problem if it was a Dem or Rep. Rkfast, Wacka, Richio, et al. are the ones making this into a partisan issue; note that there are plenty of Republicans joining in the outrage over this. It's clearly not a crime.

It's getting hard for them but here are the current talking points: (1) This is politics. (2) Clinton fired AGs. (3) AGs serve at the leisure of the president. Rings hollow to me too. Gonzo will be gonzo by Friday. He'll take the fall for this latest gaffe.

So you see nothing wrong with a sitting president firing any AG who investigates allegations of corruption in his admin or investigates a presidential friend?

A comedy and music snob? Pray, what are your other areas of expertise?

Hey you kids: Get offa Dean's lawn. And don't trip over the boombox with the Frampton double live in it--you know-- back when music was really special.

I barely know who Bill Maher is. So Google's results seem right to me--they just reflect differences in popularity. Coulter gets her fugly mug on more mainstream shows so she's easier to find on the web.

Here's the issue: Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all whacked all the AGs when they entered office. That is not the issue here. The issue is that these AGs all had stellar reviews and at least several of them (Lam in particular) were pursuing targets friendly to Bush. In pursuing their investigations, they were doing their jobs--jobs that it's important to have some degree of political immunity to do correctly. If an AG can't follow corruption leads that lead to the White House, THAT'S a big !@#$ing problem. Imagine if the president--any president--fired every AG who launched an investigation into their friends? Anyway, it's clear that the pressure to fire these 8 AGs came from the White House--perhaps directly from Rove--and if their firing was a reaction to their White House-related investigations, that's the White House tampering in investigations. There's a huge difference between that and wholesale firings that follow an election. Surely you can see the difference. Gonzo will take the fall this week, as he should. To fire people who are investigating friends of W--at the urging of W--is wrong. The attacks may be political but they are also justified. Further, if the origin of the attacks was politics, realize that a lot of Republicans have joined this feeding frenzy. What's happened here jumps party lines.

7. I give up. whats = what's. See VABills for grammar lessons.

defanately=definitely Somewhere, you have a post with no errors. 6 and counting.

what ever=whatever 5 and counting. Somewhere, you have a post with no errors. And I'm ignoring the capital/period problem.

No d in congraTulations. acceptionly=exceptionally "Lightening" is a word but the kind that hit Ben's kite is lightning--no "e." Spellcheck would not have caught the last error but I recommend it for the first 2. 3 posts by you in as many minutes with horrible grammar. I'm not stopping until I see a clean post by you.

I'm not the grammar police, but you need help. This is your 2nd post in as many minutes with embarrassing grammar.

I barely know you but I'm with Dean: You're a dick. And speaking of d, there's no "d" in congraTulations.

Can't break 50--stuck in the high 40s.

You're a piece of work--a welcome addition to the board.

WTF?!?

Bills almost universally got an "F" for last year's day 1 draft. Now people think the Bills had a good draft. Meh. If Walker doesn't work out, he's a 1 year bust--NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts so who cares? That's the possible bad move this off-season. The rest seem fine. Most people don't realize how unproductive WM was here; they believe the hype (by Willis) and the storyline (Comes back frmo a knee injury) and think of him like he played in 2005 (never repeated).

I'd have sex with god but I'm not gay. (Maybe he is though.)