Kerry gives his opinion of our servicepeople in Iraq

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Liberal" is worse than cronyism?

IMO, no. It's better. But in general establishment conservatives will, I believe, prefer a crony who can be relied on to toe the party line to a Ginsburg liberal.

But won't liberals prefer a crony that toes their line vs. a Scalia type as well? I think that blade cuts both ways.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I was hoping Dems take over one or both, since gridlock is good, but then it was pointed out that if Dems take over the Presidents immigration bill will probably be passed, so I'm pulling for the Republicans to hang on.

Frankly, when I heard Schumer is gonna take a serious look at redoing SOX, I kinda hoped Dems would take at least one house.

SOX that an expressway?

Sarbanes-Oxley.. a law meant to make corporations more transparent and accountable, enacted after the whole Enron mess. Lots of it is good, common-sense stuff but there is a lot of 'busy work' that makes IT departments (and others) work overtime with very little real benefit other than regulatory compliance. Schumer seems to realize that, which is pleasantly surprising.

"Liberal" is worse than cronyism?

IMO, no. It's better. But in general establishment conservatives will, I believe, prefer a crony who can be relied on to toe the party line to a Ginsburg liberal.

But won't liberals prefer a crony that toes their line vs. a Scalia type as well? I think that blade cuts both ways.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Liberal" is worse than cronyism?

IMO, no. It's better. But in general establishment conservatives will, I believe, prefer a crony who can be relied on to toe the party line to a Ginsburg liberal.

But won't liberals prefer a crony that toes their line vs. a Scalia type as well? I think that blade cuts both ways.

I don't think Democrat "Liberals" would want a "real' Liberal on the bench.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Liberal" is worse than cronyism?

IMO, no. It's better. But in general establishment conservatives will, I believe, prefer a crony who can be relied on to toe the party line to a Ginsburg liberal.

Which is funny because, despite the adminstrations best efforts, the Supreme court has burned them on a number of issues.

That's because they installed what one would probably want to consider "conservative" judges. Yet the administration is anything but conservative. They had that one coming.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"Liberal" is worse than cronyism?

IMO, no. It's better. But in general establishment conservatives will, I believe, prefer a crony who can be relied on to toe the party line to a Ginsburg liberal.

But won't liberals prefer a crony that toes their line vs. a Scalia type as well? I think that blade cuts both ways.

I don't think Democrat "Liberals" would want a "real' Liberal on the bench.

Define the terms for me, please. Just so I know what you're saying without havign to guess

[I'm Gone 60]

No, the worry would be more along the lines of being forced into nominating a justice whos conservative credentials are suspect. Souter, for example.

"Liberal" is worse than cronyism? Especially when the candidates qualifications come second to her partisan loyalties?

I have no problem with crony if the person is otherwise qualified, If I'm Bush I go with Ken Starr the next time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Liberal" is worse than cronyism?

IMO, no. It's better. But in general establishment conservatives will, I believe, prefer a crony who can be relied on to toe the party line to a Ginsburg liberal.

But won't liberals prefer a crony that toes their line vs. a Scalia type as well? I think that blade cuts both ways.

I don't think Democrat "Liberals" would want a "real' Liberal on the bench.

Define the terms for me, please. Just so I know what you're saying without havign to guess

I don't want to open up that can of worms again - those 'liberal' debates were ugly

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Frankly, when I heard Schumer is gonna take a serious look at redoing SOX, I kinda hoped Dems would take at least one house.

SOX that an expressway?

Sarbanes-Oxley.. a law meant to make corporations more transparent and accountable, enacted after the whole Enron mess. Lots of it is good, common-sense stuff but there is a lot of 'busy work' that makes IT departments (and others) work overtime with very little real benefit other than regulatory compliance. Schumer seems to realize that, which is pleasantly surprising.

Yeah, it would be great if someone would ease the SOX pains a little. What a pain in the ####### SOX compliance is - in practical terms. Costs a lot of time and effort with very little to show for it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, the worry would be more along the lines of being forced into nominating a justice whos conservative credentials are suspect. Souter, for example.

"Liberal" is worse than cronyism? Especially when the candidates qualifications come second to her partisan loyalties?

I have no problem with crony if the person is otherwise qualified, If I'm Bush I go with Ken Starr the next time.

Certainly - a person should be able to do the job first and foremost, but cronyism is problematic as it could call into question the integrity of the court as an independent body. The potential exists for a conflict of interest of the highest order.

[I'm Gone 60]

Sarbanes-Oxley.. a law meant to make corporations more transparent and accountable, enacted after the whole Enron mess. Lots of it is good, common-sense stuff but there is a lot of 'busy work' that makes IT departments (and others) work overtime with very little real benefit other than regulatory compliance. Schumer seems to realize that, which is pleasantly surprising.

Does he realize this or that big investment companys headquarters are in NYC? Not all that up on the bill, but just don't see Schumer helping big business unless something's in it for him.

Edited November 2, 2006 by mdyoung

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sarbanes-Oxley.. a law meant to make corporations more transparent and accountable, enacted after the whole Enron mess. Lots of it is good, common-sense stuff but there is a lot of 'busy work' that makes IT departments (and others) work overtime with very little real benefit other than regulatory compliance. Schumer seems to realize that, which is pleasantly surprising.

Does he realize this or that big investment companys headquarters are in NYC? Not all that up on the bill, but just don't see Schumer helping big business unless something's in it for him.

Helping Wall Street is in the best interests of both Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party. Even more so, if you're from New York or New Jersey.

[dalegg 143]

I found a link to the entire speach Kerry made here so you can see the entire context in which he made his remarks. It certainly could have been a "botched joke" aimed at Bush- I'll even say probably was, but you can't say it's obvious. Preceding the joke there is one joke generally poking fun of Republicans and one specifically aimed at Bush. After the joke he starts talking about Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. Love the audiences delayed reaction to the line too. I wonder if they really knew what he meant or they thought the joke was funny as it was said.

By the way Phil Angelides really didn't need this being already way down in the polls to Arnold-and it's just wierd seeing Arnold's name on my wife's Cosmo License!

Edited November 2, 2006 by dalegg

[Carol&Marc 0]

WHO is playing a GAME? GO ahead! VOTE! LEFT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjxay8Nc_E...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjxay8Nc_E...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Sfi_lJxuU...ted&search= CMON LETS DOTHIS FOR THEM!

who's side you ON Hmmmmm! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMVlIyjXFH4...ted&search=

[sunandmoon 450]

what's the big deal about. another politician putting his foot in his mouth. is this something new?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

WHO is playing a GAME? GO ahead! VOTE! LEFT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjxay8Nc_E...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjxay8Nc_E...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Sfi_lJxuU...ted&search= CMON LETS DOTHIS FOR THEM!

who's side you ON Hmmmmm! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMVlIyjXFH4...ted&search=

That 4th clip is interesting - "Thank you. Drink Budweiser"