jamiroguy1

House panel sidetracks resolution calling for spy probe February 25, 2004 By David Hess, CongressDailyPM Under a thick partisan overcast, the House International Relations Committee on Wednesday sidetracked a resolution calling for a congressional probe of the circumstances surrounding the public outing of a CIA agent whose husband had debunked a Bush administration claim that Iraq obtained uranium from Africa. By a 24-22 margin, the GOP-controlled committee voted along straight party lines to report the resolution adversely to the House. In effect, such votes quash any chance that a measure like this would ever be taken up or, in this case, that a prompt election-year congressional inquiry into this case would be launched. In thwarting the Democrats' proposal to embark on the investigation, International Relations Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., insisted that an ongoing grand jury inquiry could be compromised by a parallel congressional probe. "It would be irresponsible for this committee to allow [the resolution] to jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation by the Department of Justice," Hyde said. "That is a matter best left to the grand jury." Full Article http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022504cdpm2.htm

http://drudgereport.com/flash6.htm LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH THU FEB 26 2004 12:28:21 ET THE NATION'S TOP RADIO HOST RUSH LIMBAUGH WARNED OF GROWING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN BROADCASTING CONTENT. LIMBAUGH MADE THE COMMENTS AFTER HIS PARENT COMPANY CLEAR CHANNEL DROPPED VIACOM'S HOWARD STERN FROM ITS STATIONS. 'SMUT ON TV GETS PRAISED. SMUT ON TV WINS EMMYS. ON RADIO, THERE SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS,' LIMBAUGH EXPLAINED. 'I'VE NEVER HEARD HOWARD STERN. BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN THIS, I GET A LITTLE FRIGHTENED. 'IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT BY AND LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO 'CENSOR' WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG... WHAT HAPPENS IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF JOHN KERRYS, OR TERRY MCAULIFFES START RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. AND DECIDE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE LEADING TO VIOLENCE? 'I AM IN THE FREE SPEECH BUSINESS. ITS ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT. ITS ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.' http://drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Me too.

Someone can be. They'll just have no rights, be a second class citizen, and will burn in hell for eternity according to his logic.

Big Oil Companies Granted $66 Million by Homeland Security New York-WABC, February 23, 2004) — As New York City scrambles to cover security costs to protect against another terror attack, Eyewitness News has found millions in taxpayer dollars going to protect some of the nation's wealthiest companies It is an allocation of scarce Homeland Security funds that, some say, defies common sense. The Investigators' Jim Hoffer joins us now with his exclusive story. We know that recently the Department of Homeland Security cut millions of dollars in grants to help improve communications between New York City's emergency responders. But you'll never guess who is getting millions in security dollars. Our investigation has found recipients of these limited funds are among the world's richest corporations. Be it New York City's subway, its fire department or police -- they use every penny they can to prepare for a terrorist attack. But millions of dollars in security grants that New York sorely needs is helping protect one industry: big oil. Jim Hoffer: "Citgo has received over $17 million, Conoco-Phillips $10 million, Shell $9-million." Danielle Brian, Project on Government Oversight: "Wow, that's just extraordinary." Our investigation has discovered that since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has given oil companies tens of millions of dollars to secure their port refineries, many of those facilities in New York and New Jersey. Danielle Brian: "This is clearly corporate welfare ... And the idea that millions of dollars are going to multi-billion dollar industries that have tremendous profits is really an outrage." Documents show that Citgo got more than $17 million in port security grants. Some of that money will go to build barriers and fences at its Linden, New Jersey, refinery. And another huge refinery also in Linden will get nearly $700,000 in taxpayer funded security upgrades, even though its owner Conocco Phillips made $4.7 billion profit last year. Full article http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/investigators/print_wabc_investigators_022304funds.html

No shit, sherlock.

CIA chief predicts war with no end By David Rennie in Washington (Filed: 25/02/2004) America's assault on al-Qa'eda has scattered its terrorist expertise across the globe, meaning that the United States will be menaced by Islamic extremism "for the foreseeable future", the CIA director, George Tenet, said yesterday. He offered the Senate intelligence committee a bleak vision of a war on terrorism without end, in which even the destruction of al-Qa'eda would not make America safe. Full Article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$5FSRUPNXFBNDZQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2004/02/25/wtenet25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/25/ixworld.html

awww poor patbattman.

Let this be a lesson to all women!!! If you take RU486, not only are you murdurer but you will rot in hell!!!!! That is all.

No, because you have no respect for anyone, douchebag.

Bravo.

You've reached new heights of ignorance on this one.

Yeah, why?

lol... Talk about spin. I'm sticking to the issue. You're not understanding that what your saying is pretty pig headed and elitist. Listen, as I have explained this several times before. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CIVIL UNIONS AND MARRIAGE. 1. PORTABILITY. One state will not recognize another couples status. 2. TAX BENEFITS. Civil Unions do not offer the same tax breaks as a married couple. 3. EXCLUSION OF INSURANCE BENEFICIARIES. Most life insurance policies do not pay to civil union couples. 4. Denial of Freedom of Religion. Contrary to what you believe, the catholic faith, or islam, or judaism, or hindism's (etc) rules do not rule everyone on earth. And especially in the United States of America where we have freedom of religion unlike the puritanical rule you'd like for everyone here to live in. You contradict yourself if you believe in the basic human rights of everyone in the United States but not for gays.

Majority of people voted for Gore. Should we have had a diffent president? Look it's fundamentally wrong for us discriminate against gay people. If the majority of people in the United States want to be homophoebic and limit the rights of homosexuals then so be it but have we forgotten the lessons learned of discrimination during the civil rights era? Apprarently so.

So you want the federal gov't to make decisions for what other religious denominations that aren't as popular should decide? You know some churches allow gay marriage? How can you say one religion is right and another is wrong? That's the big hole in your arguement.

I wish you were right... and we could agree but you just plain and simple wrong here. CIVIL UNIONS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS MARRIAGE. NO ONE CARES WHAT YOUR CHURCH DOES. Newsflash for you: Some churches allow gay people to marry. You're just going to have to come to grips with the fact that people will do what ever they want, even if that means getting married in their church. I'm not saying that the gov't should force churches to marry gay people. That's up to that denomination to decide whether they want to marry gay people and I think the ones that will allow it have made a stance. Sounds like you're the one whining. Don't be so affraid to give gay people the same rights that you and your children should have or should all gay people burn in hell?

http://www.unprecedented.org/

The problem is, batteman, is that most people look at gay marriage as a sin and will not give gay people the simple rights that your parents or your grandparents enjoy or ejoyed...this is assuming that they were heterosexual. If a church wants to call it marriage. It's called marriage. It's called freedom of religion. The First Amendment of our constitution says that Americans are free to practice their religion anyway they like... It doesn't say "americans can practice their religion anyway they like, EXCEPT GAYS!!!" but if people like you and Bush have they're way it will say that in our constitution. This is a civil rights issue.

Some religions accept gay marriages and are marrying them in the church. Is your belief in religion better than everyone else's belief in their religion. Learn something about the first amendment of our constitution.

Here are my thoughts on Nader: I'm all for more choices in this election but doesn't this divide the people with the"anybody but Bush" mantra? In the 2000 election many people believed that Nader gave the election to Bush by splitting the progressive/liberal swinging vote as Gore only lost by three(3) electoral votes. I'm not necessarily sure Nader is the sole and only reason Gore did not prevail. There were many reasons. You had the whole Florida election debacle, the Supreme Court decision to send the decision of recounts back to Florida, not to mention the disenfranchisement of minority votes by the exclusion of names to voter registration lists. etc... In lieu, of the above, I'm not sure it's such a good for Nader to run...but I haven't voted yet. I could still change my mind.

I'm there for howels.