Saturday, May 05, 2007

GOD BLESS GREENSBURG, KANSAS


(What's left of the Greesburg High School)

Nearly the entire population of Greensburg is homeless after the community is devastated. Greensburg is a beautiful, historic town in America's heartland. Ten people have now died in the worst tornado in our country's history. Miraculously, a baby was found alive above ground in a bathtub, nestled in her mother's arms. The mother was found alive too. Thank God!!

GREENSBURG, Kan. | This small southwestern Kansas town no longer has a grade school, a high school, a hospital, a fire station, a business district or a main street.

Eight residents lie dead, and it may be days before rescuers digging through unfathomable tons of rubble can figure out if there are more. A ninth victim was found in the Pratt County town of Hopewell. At least 16 others are in critical condition in hospitals as far away as Wichita, 110 miles to the east. (The Wichita Eagle)

Linda Young of ALL HEADLINE NEWS reporting from Greesburg reports:

Adding to the woes of residents of Greensburg, Kansas who survived Friday's tornado was the slow response by the National Guard. The guard had trouble responding because some of the equipment needed is in Iraq. One of the National Guard's primary duties is responding to natural disasters and assisting Americans.

Much of the money allocated to guard units is for the equipment, including trucks used to move equipment to wherever it's needed.

"Your National Guard is prepared to respond to fires, floods, hurricanes, and a host of other natural disasters," reads a statement on the Guard's Web site.

But the National Guard unit responding to the disaster in Greensburg wasn't prepared. It was slowed down in getting there because they didn't have all the equipment they needed to respond.

Some of their equipment is in Iraq, National Public Radio announcer Carl Castle reported Monday morning.

"We're missing about half our trucks" as well as Humvees and trained personnel that are in Iraq, said Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, on NPR Monday morning.

BIG WEEKEND! DE LA HOYA * DERBY * SPIDERMAN * CINCO DE MAYO



Mayweather beat Oscar de la Hoya in the big fight tonight at the MGM Grand. Our friend Steve Kaufman, the pop artist, did original art for the event.

This is a big weekend. First it was the red skin, then the black skin. The secretive commercials started coming early and I overheard my 12 year old say in a cryptic mesmerized tone, “Cool. The new one." The commercials had no voice over, no music, nothing except the red checkered, masked man.

I took four boys, ages 11-13, to see SPIDERMAN today. INCREDIBLE!!! There is a lot to be said for capitalism when its not abused. The most stressful part was standing in the will-call line, then having to race to get seats, then go back out and juggle 3 hotdogs, 2 nachos, 4 popcorns and assorted sour worms.

One of my sons had a crush on a certain girl last year in 4th grade. Now he says, "I can't be tied down all my life with one girl."

The kids stumble over each other trying NOT to sit next to me in the theater. God forbid I say 'cool, hip, hot, awesome, tight, sweet or bitchin'... or whisper a plot point in their ear. They hiss at me, SHH! SHHHHHHHHHH! Still, it is sheer magic being with them no matter how rude they are to me.

I have gone to the Kentucky Derby several times, as a guest of Anita and Preston Madden. There is nothing like going to the Derby and being driven by a police escort the wrong way on the freeway to get there on time! Those were the days when Mary Lou Whitney and Anita Madden would compete for celebrities to attend their Derby parties -- lavish affairs that would start at noon and last all night.

"There is a long tradition of wild and strange parties around Derby time...the most notorious is Anita Madden's Derby Eve blowout at her family's Hamburg Place farm in Lexington (her husband's grandfather, John E. Madden, bred five Derby winners there). The party, which benefits a Lexington charity called the Bluegrass Boys' Ranch, always has a fanciful theme. A sampling -- Rapture of the Deep, complete with mermaids and mermen and a figure of an octopus surrounded by a dry-ice fog; The Ultimate Odyssey, with young people togged out as Greek gods and goddesses while the Trojan War was reenacted under the gaze of a sixteen foot statue of Zeus clutching a neon thunderbolt." - Kelly Coughlin

Anita Madden would start the day by serving her guests mint juleps and a picnic lunch. We would all travel by a private bus to the Derby.

Robert Dreyfuss was in town Friday and we celebrated Cinco de Mayo yesterday at El Torito Grill. So great to see him. He knows everything about what's really going on in Washington.

589 comments:

  1. I can't do it. Seeing Kirsten Dunst in any kind of a romantic scene makes my skin crawl-she should stick to vampire roles, since being an underworld creature suits her.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PLEASE don't spoil the plot!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Suzie Q - we said some nice things about you on the show and about Larry Johnson #1 as well as #2.
    -----------------
    Lydia:

    I was listening to your show this morning and when I heard that I was very surprised!

    Thank you! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bill Clinton warns of looming disasters By JESSE HARLAN ALDERMAN, Associated Press Writer
    Fri May 4, 6:27 PM ET

    Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that disasters such as worldwide famine and an obesity epidemic could destroy the U.S. health care system unless politicians begin to look ahead and cooperate.

    Clinton, speaking at a forum sponsored by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said governments fail to act even when disasters are anticipated because leaders are distracted by fulfilling campaign promises and scrambling to respond to immediate emergencies. Big-picture planning gets "crowded out," he said.

    "This is coming," Clinton said. "And I know there is no great political constituency for it, but we can avert these disasters for not very much money if they can be put into the public debate and people understand clearly what's going to happen."

    The Kennedy School is spending $1.5 million over two years to study why governments across the world have failed to act on threats such as heat waves and hurricanes, even when they know they are coming.

    From looking back at Hurricane Katrina and forward to the absence of firm plans to cool the planet or stem malaria, some of the school's top researchers will study the roots of government inaction.

    The studies will help Congress, presidential candidates and world leaders learn from past mistakes and prepare for future action, said Christopher Stone, a Kennedy School professor and head of the initiative.

    The program was born in the botched response to Katrina — the hurricane that experts had warned for years would ravage New Orleans' inadequate levies and poorly sheltered coast.

    From looking at the failures, the world can better prepare for future disasters, just as the architects of World War II righted the woeful preparation for World War I, Stone said.

    "Each of these are threats that we know are going to happen. This is not like saying, 'What do we do if the president of China is kidnapped tomorrow,'" Stone said. "It's not even that there is really technical disagreement about these things. It's just a matter of figuring how we can get governments to act."

    Clinton warned presidential candidates of both parties — a group that includes his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — that it will be hard, and likely unpopular, to prepare for foreseeable disasters.

    He said the next president should solve the "biggest, baddest problems"; take small action when the whole problem cannot be addressed; never appoint incompetent political allies to positions of disaster response; never let political ideology blur scientific evidence; and cooperate nationally and internationally.

    Advice Bush will ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let me hear how it was, I always liked Spiderman..........never was a Superman fan though. :D

    ReplyDelete
  6. Spider-Man" breaks 1-day record in North America
    Sat May 5, 2007 12:46PM EDT
    LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "Spider-Man 3" sold a record $59 million worth of tickets during its first day of release across North America, and is on track to break the industry mark for an opening weekend, according to estimates issued on Saturday by the film's distributor.

    The highly anticipated superhero saga opened in the United States and Canada on Friday, having already begun its international campaign on May 1.

    The North American one-day and opening-weekend records were held by Walt Disney Co.'s July 2006 smash "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," with respective sums of $55.8 million and $135.6 million.

    "Based on the first day's performance, the studio believes the film will deliver in the range of $135 million to $145 million in North America for its first three days of release," Columbia Pictures said in a statement.

    The Sony Corp.-owned studio will issue three-day estimates early on Sunday.

    The first "Spider-Man," released in 2002, earned $39.4 million on its first day, $114.8 million on its first weekend, and $403 million by the end of its North American run. Two years later, "Spider-Man 2" finished with $373 million. It opened on a Wednesday -- rather than the traditional Friday -- with $40.4 million, and earned $88.2 million during the subsequent weekend.

    Overseas business is similarly brisk, with Friday sales estimated at $45 million. A Columbia spokesman did not have information on the foreign earnings to date.

    All three films star Tobey Maguire as the web-slinging crime fighter, and Kirsten Dunst as his girlfriend. Sam Raimi directed the trilogy.


    $59 million in one day. You chose the right one Lydia.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW Lydia, another awesome show, you and Doug were FANTASTIC..........you guys always manage to get GREAT guests and focus on key issues of the week............you guys really should have your own primetime radio or tv show that can reach millions in mainstream America.........you guys are THAT good, and with the strong shift to the left your shows popularity would quickly grow.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wanna know HOW DESPERATE Georgie and the neo-cons are getting?

    Discharged gay sailor is called back to active duty


    I guess they are getting desperate if they are recalling sailors they threw out for being gay....

    I wonder if they are quietly recalling others they discharged for being gay?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bringing back a discharged gay sailor only means they are quickly running out of 20 year olds who want to risk death.

    The next step is WWII vets.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yo gay-dalf

    Bill Mahar has your number son;

    Maher Slams Conservatives Who Poison the National Debate

    Bill Maher blasts conservatives who dismiss everything French as if it's somehow now "the ultimate argument winner" (see: "Kerry looks French" or Bill O'Reilly's boycott), then goes off on how conservative social issues tarnish the political process.

    "New rule: Conservatives have to stop rolling their eyes every time they hear the word "France." Like just calling something French is the ultimate argument winner. As if to say, ha ha, what can you say about a country that was too stupid to get onboard with our wonderfully conceived and brilliantly executed war in Iraq."

    Bill Mahar definately has your number widdle boy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bill Mayer had a great show last night and Sean Penn was all over Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What I casnt understand is WHY ARENT THESE CRIMINALS IN JAIL????????????

    it is obvious they intended to lie to and deceive the American people and thats exactly what they did.......these fools committed treason by lying us into a war and 5 years later they are STILL not held accountable...........worse of all that buffoon George Tenet is trying to write a book and make millions off of his treason........the idiot has the nerve to say on the record that deceiving the American people into supporting the war based on lies and cooked intelligence is a "Slam Dunk" and not only is this traitor walking around free as a bird, but he is being allowed to make millions off his his treason and lies that have resulted in close to a million deaths like its all a big joke or something.

    Tenet should not get one penny from this book, he's a criminal and should be ttreated as all traitors throughout history have been.

    Kudos to Larry Johnson for saying he'd like to beat Tenet's a$$........because after the amount of people that have died unneccessarily thats exactly what this pompous greedy fool deserves!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I mean if 7 years ago you surveyed the ENTIRE nation and said if a president and his administration cooked and cherry picked intelligence to lie us into a war, spyed on American citizens, supported torture in America name, dismantled Habeous Corpus and the Constitution etc,,,,,,,,,,,then asked the American public if this was treason and the people should be in jail at least 95% would say yes.

    But the McCarthy like Pod people that blindly support their Momkey emporer just cant stp supporting the Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Its like ABC News. They wouldn't allow the DC Madam to name names on 20/20 last night because they weren't "newsworthy."

    That is the only news in the entire story.

    ABC News is following the same vein as Fox.

    Their golden rod is John Stossel.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Larry:

    I just posted this story.. the US Attorney scandal has collided with the DC Madam scandal!! LOL

    US Attorneys and DC Madam scandals

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good maybe ABC will finally have to report some real news.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ABC News is a news network for trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Worf made some real good points on the show today! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Larry:

    Yes, I can see that ABC has changed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Worf has stars in his eyes of fame and fortune.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ABC News had a right winger to run their news division and he finally left, and John Stossel has been writing books on the wonderful morals of conservatives.

    Very sickening.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Okay Carl, I won't... but I took 4 boys, ages 11-13 who would like to tell you what they think!

    ReplyDelete
  23. The most stressful part was standing in the will-call line, then having to race to get seats, then go back out and juggle 3 hotdogs, 2 nachos, 4 popcorns and assorted sour worms.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Lydia!

    I really enjoyed your show today! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lydia:

    Your experience with the boys reminds me of several times spent at the movies with my children, when they were younger.

    Good times... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lydia:

    This DC Madam scandal is connected to the US Attorney firings scandal now.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Larry said...
    Worf has stars in his eyes of fame and fortune.


    Lol.

    Not hardly.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Suzie-Q said...


    This DC Madam scandal is connected to the US Attorney firings scandal now.


    Elaborate Suzy. How are they tied?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Suzy, you say the two are tied.

    Whats the connection?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Worf:

    The DC Law Firm, Akin Gump, who represents Monica Goodling, (US Attorney firings scandal) and was the law firm who wrote her Fifth Amendment letter. John M. Dowd is the attorney representing Goodling and his assistant that just quit, was the escort who was working for the DC Madam.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Worf:

    Does this mean that telephone and/or face-to-face conversations took place between (1) the Magnificent Monica Goodling, of U.S. Attorneygate fame, and (2) the Akin Gump Escort? Presumably Monica Goodling had to interact with the Akin Gump Escort, whenever she called John Dowd on the phone, or came to his office for a meeting.

    Above the Law

    ReplyDelete
  32. Suzie, Thanks for the heads up. I am going to read this DC madam and attorney firing scandal you posted now.

    Regarding kids: no matter how crazy it gets, I LOVE hanging out with the KIDS. But they try not to sit next to me in the theater, and God forbid I try to laugh too loud or whisper a plot point in their ear. They hiss at me, SHH! SHHHHHH! It is sheer magic being with them no matter how rude they are to me.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh well, i guess i must be deliriously babbling or something...........NO ONE seems to agree with me that Bush, Cheney, Tenet etc..........should be in jail................so i'll take a nap and come back when i'm a little more sane..................silly me to be so appalled at all the criminals committing treason resulting in almost 1 million uneccessary deaths and being allowed to profit from it.

    How does that saying go "Money Trumps Peace" GWB

    ReplyDelete
  34. Silly me to demand accountabilty!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Steady there Mike, lol.

    We're with you buddy. They all should go to jail, just like Sean Penn said last night on Bill Maher.

    Hopefully that will too come to pass.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Suzie-Q said...
    . John M. Dowd is the attorney representing Goodling and his assistant that just quit, was the escort who was working for the DC Madam.



    I did NOT know that.

    Cool.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Lydia said "Regarding kids: no matter how crazy it gets, I LOVE hanging out with the KIDS. But they try not to sit next to me in the theater, and God forbid I try to laugh too loud or whisper a plot point in their ear. They hiss at me, SHH! SHHHHHH! It is sheer magic being with them no matter how rude they are to me."

    You have a great attitude and are smart not to take things personal,............thats just kids being kids,

    I remember when i was like 10 or 11 my parents took like 15-20 of my friends to see Raise the Titantic, and I made them sit somewhere else..............lol the people in that theater must have hated us we were such little trouble makers.

    ReplyDelete
  38. In India they have a saying Mike.

    how do you eat an elephant?

    One bite at a time
    .

    Bush is the elephant. And I think Congress is working on his impeachment as we speak.

    Too bad we don't have a strong speaker of the House, or majority leader. Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer.

    3 of the worst possible leaders we could have out of the group.

    :|

    Well, not counting Dick Durbin.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Worf:

    Also, there may be a connection with Duke Cunningham (Hookergate) and the DC Madam.

    They're all hosed! LOLMAO

    Goodnight guys! :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. P.S.

    Lydia, don't feel bad. My sons never wanted to sit near me in the theater either.. that wouldn't be cool to be sitting with Mom. (Even though their friends told them they had a very cool Mom!) LOL

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree and your probably right............but i'd equate GWB more to an elephant turd than an actual elephant............but I think you nailed it if we had stronger more forceful people in charge things would be going better.

    BTW..........dont mind me i've had the Flu all week and have been alternating between feverish/delusional and cranky.........but i'm starting to come back to the world of the living.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thank God however we have key people in key positions, like Leahey and Waxman.

    Now with it exposed that Rove violated the Hatch act, not just once, but over and over and over, in all sorts of Federal facilites, he CANNOT avoid testifying before congress. His stonewalling days are over. He must comply.

    Also with him coaching witnesses with the intent of misleading congress to sheild his other crimes, he's looking at some real time in the pokey.

    But for Bush, Rove testifying is the worst possible thing that could happen.

    They do not want that. But they have no choice. Rove will testify, and when he's looking at 60 years of hard time (ok, in a country club prison, but still..) I think he'll make a deal.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yea, I never wanted to sit with my Dad in the theatre. He didn't want to pay for popcorn so he smuggled in bags of fritos and stuff, and made so much noise opening them I was afraid we'd get booted.

    And my mom took me to see Easy Rider.

    :|

    How embarrassing is that?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Suzie-Q said...
    Worf:

    Also, there may be a connection with Duke Cunningham (Hookergate) and the DC Madam.


    Groovy.


    :D

    Enquirer-like even....

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mike said...
    I agree and your probably right............but i'd equate GWB more to an elephant turd than an actual elephant............


    You and Sean Penn would get along pretty good.

    Thats ruthless buddy, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Whats so crazy is that with all the other crap going on, no one has time to rag on the right wing for their YEARS of badgering Clinton on a silly LEGAL blowjob, while HALF THEIR PARTY is busy going "around the world" with the Heidi Fleiss quartet singers...

    ReplyDelete
  47. CURIOUS WORFEUS said...
    Thank God however we have key people in key positions, like Leahey and Waxman.

    Now with it exposed that Rove violated the Hatch act, not just once, but over and over and over, in all sorts of Federal facilites, he CANNOT avoid testifying before congress. His stonewalling days are over. He must comply.

    Also with him coaching witnesses with the intent of misleading congress to sheild his other crimes, he's looking at some real time in the pokey.

    But for Bush, Rove testifying is the worst possible thing that could happen.

    They do not want that. But they have no choice. Rove will testify, and when he's looking at 60 years of hard time (ok, in a country club prison, but still..) I think he'll make a deal."


    Agreed, Leahy and Waxman are awesome we need more Congress people like them.

    As for Rove et al.........corect me if i'm wrong but isnt it true that once impeachment proceedings are activated against GWB, doesnt that mean that he can NO LONGER pardon anyone or wage war..................if thats true that could be a perfect strategy to prevent him from pardoning his minions so they feel they dont have to talk.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Absoultely Mike.

    Once they start with impeachment hearings he won't be able to pardon people.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Once impeachment hearings begin they can temporarily freeze presidential powers that might be used to impact the hearings.

    Bush will be impeached Mike.

    If he is not, then he will start WW3.

    I have seen both scenario's, but I believe if we continue forward, he will be impeached, and America will being to heal.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I believe he will be impeached this year.

    He will be pushed out, along with Darth Cheney. Too much truth is coming out.

    ReplyDelete
  51. If we hadn't passed some of the milestones we've passed, then I wouldn't be so sure.

    But we passed most of the milestones I believe we needed to pass to make it happen.

    Tenet coming out was at the top of the list. That had to happen. Now it has.

    Also I knew Rove had to be implicated in an actual crime.

    That has also now come to pass.

    There are several other milestones that have also come to fruition, and combined, and together, they make impeachment a necessary reality.

    ReplyDelete
  52. And of course the number one milestone, the Democrats needed to take back both houses of Congress.

    And that of course came to pass too.

    The stars are all lining up.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Lets hope so............things are certainly looking more promising everyday.........and I know Waxman and Leahy are going about this the right way and I support them.............but at the same time i'm a little impatient and the wheels of justice are turning too slowly in my opinion!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Agreed. I won't fault you there.

    About a million dead Iraqi's and thousands of dead Americans too slow.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Worfeus I happen to think the major players in the democratic party are NOT pushing for Impeachment, and that it will be called for from the sidelines, but never get center stage.

    we are 1/3 of the way through this year with out even any real hearings which impeachment could be founded on,

    as both 1974 and 1998 shows with out an independent counsel focusing the investigations for the House to proceed hearings are required,


    which given the way the congress works takes time and with four months already in the history books impeachment is not on the front burner,

    funding Iraq is right now with the argument of whether a time limit can be placed on the war or Bush is unstoppable.


    I see where impeachment could be focused, but there is NO actual proof Bush or Cheney broke the law which at this time would stand up.

    Because far too many people are saying things which do not add up.

    Right now I see most of the people in DC trying to get through this summer and setting themselves up for the 2008 election year,

    how they can position themselves and party for winning,


    which most democrats after the re-pubie drumming in 1998 are reluctant to do.


    I do not see most democrats lining up to push Impeachment with out a real smoking gun which the MSM was willing to sell to the American people which at this time the MSM is not willing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  56. U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,362
    Sat May 5, 2007 7:13 PM EDTus-news, iraq, us, associated-press, deathsThe Associated Press, AP Writer
    As of Saturday, May 5, 2007, at least 3,362 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,738 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

    The AP count is four higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.

    The British military has reported 147 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 20; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, six; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Romania, one death each.
    The latest identifications reported by the military:

    — Two soldiers were killed Thursday by small arms fire in Baghdad. Both were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. Killed were:

    — Army Sgt. Felix G. Gonzalez-Iraheta, 25, Sun Valley, Calif.

    — Army Pfc. John D. Flores, 21, Barrigada, Guam.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Not that embarassing Worf,

    I had my father take me to see "Death Race 2000" AND "Crazy Larry and Dirty Mary"

    ReplyDelete
  58. I see the investigations of this year being used to campaign on next year by the democrats and weaken the GOP which would cause quite a few americans to turn away from the GOP for a cycle or two which is all the Democrats need to establish them selves as "Winners" which would mean the MSM would have to turn toward them for access to power in DC and would cause the talking heads to become much friendlier to Dems like they have been to the repubs since the mid 1990's

    ReplyDelete
  59. Lee Iaccoca just said on Tim Russert's program on CNBC we need a TIMETABLE for getting out of Iraq.

    He is not very happy with the war or the incompetent people who have run it so far.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Mayweather still unbeaten, and the champ
    Mayweather takes 154-pound title from De La Hoya
    By Michael Hirsley
    Tribune staff reporter

    May 5, 2007, 11:38 PM CDT

    LAS VEGAS -- Floyd Mayweather remained unbeaten and added the biggest name so far to his résumé, beating Oscar De La Hoya by a split decision Saturday night.

    A pro-De La Hoya sellout crowd of 16,700 booed the decision at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, after cheering lustily when De La Hoya's cornermen raised him on their shoulders as if he had been victorious. Judge Chuck Giampa scored the close bout 116-112 and judge Jerry Roth had it 115-113, both for Mayweather. Judge Tom Kazmarek saw De La Hoya winning 115-113.

    "It was a hell of a fight," Mayweather said. "I was having fun up there. I was easy work for me. He was rough and tough, but he couldn't beat the best.

    "I could see his shots coming. I just fought the best fighter in our era and I beat him," the victor said, repeating his earlier claim that he would retire after the bout.

    The discouraged loser, who relinquished his 154-pound World Boxing Council title, said, "I felt I won the fight. I landed the harder, crisper punches.

    "I'm the champion and you have to do more than that to beat a champion."

    Mayweather's estranged father also thought De La Hoya did enough to win.

    "I thought Oscar won the fight on points, threw more punches and was more aggressive," said Floyd Mayweather Sr., who used to train De La Hoya. "My son had good defense and caught a lot of his punches, but I still thought Oscar pressed enough to win the fight."

    Ringside punching stats heavily favored Mayweather, crediting him with landing 207 of 481 punches to 122 of 587 for De La Hoya. Mayweather also landed more power punches than De La Hoya, outscoring him 138-82.

    The crowd chanted, "Oscar! Oscar!" in the opening round. After leading with left hooks, Mayweather scored best with an overhand right to the head. De La Hoya focused on body shots, and was warned by referee Kenny Bayless for a low blow.

    De La Hoya was the aggressor in the second round, keeping Mayweather from initiating exchanges. In the third, Mayweather advanced with left jabs or straight rights, then leaned back when De La Hoya tried to pressure him.

    De La Hoya open up at the start of the fourth, mostly with left jabs and hooks. When Mayweather leaned back into the ropes, De La Hoya popped a series of lefts to the body. Unaffected, Mayweather scored with hooks to the head until De La Hoya caught him with a left hook to the face at the bell.

    In the first toe-to-toe exchange of the fight, in the fifth, Mayweather scored best with a short right to the head. He then caught De La Hoya with a left-right combination upstairs.

    The sixth and seventh were close to call. De La Hoya sought to soften up Mayweather with body shots as he pressed him into the ropes, and let his hands go with more authority in the sevent. But Mayweather again countered with rapid potshots. The crowd cheered De La Hoya's best work but ooohed respectfully at Mayweather's quick punches.

    De La Hoya's aggressiveness, backing Mayweather into the ropes with a flurry at the end of the eighth round, seemingly gave him the edge.

    Mayweather caught De La Hoya with rapid-fire lefts and rights in the middle of the ring before De La Hoya was able to press him into the ropes where he scored best. Back in the center, however, Mayweather again landed crisp shots to the head. Late in an even 10th round, Mayweather clocked De La Hoya with a straight right at the bell.

    In the 11th, Mayweather scored first and best in exchanges in the center of the ring, and the crowd booed when he retreated.

    The crowd cheered at the bell for the final round. De La Hoya tried to load up his right hand and boxed furiously. But again, Mayweather caught him cleanly when there was a lull.

    Interpret it as you might, and the crowd reacted mostly with boos, Mayweather entered the ring first wearing a huge white sombrero. His cornermen wore shirts that read, "Mayweather Loves Mexico." Mexican-American De La Hoya followed to loud cheers, bare-headed and clad in a red robe, then gave a raised-fist salute before stepping through the ropes.

    Awaiting the fighters' entrance into the arena, the crowd cheered a series of celebrity introductions ranging from Helen Mirren to 50 Cent to Jennifer Lopez to Michael Jordan to Jack Nicholson.

    Unbeaten in 38 bouts, Mayweather retained his status as the consensus best pound-for-pound fighter in boxing.

    In an undercard feature, Rey "Boom Boom" Bautista beat Sergio Medina by unanimous decision in a matchup of unbeaten junior featherweights. Round Lake featherweight Jose Hernandez lost a unanimous decision to Rocky Juarez in the main undercard bout.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Voltron said...
    Not that embarassing Worf,

    I had my father take me to see "Death Race 2000" AND "Crazy Larry and Dirty Mary"


    Yup.

    Mee paw took me to both of those.

    "You do that again and I'll braid your tits"

    Crazy Larry

    ReplyDelete
  62. And boy did that audience cheer when he Carradine backed over his pit crew.

    I didn't like it though. No honor in it. Just ruthlessness.

    ReplyDelete
  63. And BTW, its not Crazy Larry and Dirty Mary


    Its "Dirty Mary and Crazy Larry".

    ReplyDelete
  64. clif said...
    Worfeus I happen to think the major players in the democratic party are NOT pushing for Impeachment, and that it will be called for from the sidelines, but never get center stage.


    Oh I don't disagree that the "major players" aren't going for it. But there are several important players that are.

    Impeachment doesn't come about because Congress decides the President needs to be impeached.

    It comes about because the people decide the President needs to be impeached.

    Once the people decide, the Congress will come along.

    ReplyDelete
  65. We are passing milestones Clif.

    Milestones that once we pass, we cannot turn back.

    You can't put the cork back in now.

    Its all coming out and nothings going to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. well Worfeus UNLESS the MSM decides to get HONEST with what really has happened and quites soft-balling everyone they have on the truth will stay buried long enough for the election cycle to get into the primary season at which time a hell of a lot of people will say Bush is almost finished why waste the time impeaching him. The season will begin in earnest right after the Christmas, New Years season this year which means they have about 3-4 months to put impeachment on the front pages and then about 4 months to impeach because NO politician is going to fight for impeachment in 2008.

    If no real investigations directed at establishing the impeachment itself not just investigations to base impeachment on by labor Day I don't think they will pull it off.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I don't think there is enough time left ion this year to investigate, indict the right people given the fact the right will fight at every turn and go for appeals courts like Scooter Libby is doing trying to run out the clock and get their post election pardon from Bush.

    I see just this summer and early fall before the Washington establishment moves on and looks to the election for getting rid of Bush and his cronies, because all the House 1/3 of the senate will be up for election and NOT want to be tied down trying to impeach somebody who would be gone in about a year or less if they did nothing.

    From both a strategic and even tactical stand point impeaching anybody in their last year of office does not seem politically expedient if your up for re-election.

    Especially since the Impeachment of Clinton looks like it backfired on the republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Nixon fought from July 23, 1973 to July 24, 1974 to keep the Watergate tapes from seeing the light of day even though the Congress had subpoenaed them.

    If Bush was any where as successful we would be in the middle of next years election before the evidence for impeachment sees the light of day.

    ReplyDelete
  69. MIke - I agree with you about your important comment.

    The criminals should be in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Clif, dont you see impeachment proceedings can close the pardon window.........once started who cares if GWB and co drag things out because his minions will be MORE vulnerable because they will not be able to be pardoned.

    Even if the fool is impeached the day before his term is over its a win win, closes the pardon loopole for his minions, gets the crimes in the MSM for the elections and makes the public aware of what REALLY happened and what the truth is and ties Bushs hands for the rest of his presidency.

    I think the public is demanding impeachment.

    ReplyDelete
  71. You guys are mistaken about the pendency of an impeachment proceeding precluding a pardon. It does not. Bush can pardon Libby as long as he is the president.

    I think you are confusing this with the fact that the president may not pardon a federal officer IN an impeachment proceeding. He may, however, pardon anyone he wants in a criminal proceeding.

    Then again, you guys thought that Nixon was impeached and Clinton was not, so why am I not surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Tall Texan said...
    Then again, you guys thought that Nixon was impeached and Clinton was not, so why am I not surprised."

    A couple questions Troll Tex.........

    1) Are you saying there is a difference between being convicted, and resigning like a guilty coward to avoid conviction????????????

    2) Have you ever accused people of being guilty or of committing crimes despite not having been convicted?

    Nixon was a cowardly criminal that was clearly guilty and resigned to avoid impeachment..............and most job applications ask have you EVER resigned to AVOID being fired.........thats exactly what Nixon did.

    Your NOTHING but a blindly loyal hippocrite trying to defend the repugs...........when what you are doing is essentialy defending the indefensible!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Whats wrong Tiny the LIAR you just pop in to spew your lies and hippocritical Reich Wing BS then run away!!!!!!!!!!

    Since all you are is a lying hippocritical Reich Wing Troll .............I think Tiny the Liar might become interchangible with Troll Tex!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  74. BTW Tiny The LIar..............does calling a disabled veteran a welfare queen mean you dont think disabled veterans are entitled to support......................it sure looks that way to me or is it just those soldiers and vets who dont agree with YOU politically who YOU feel DESERVE to be supported by your tax dollars.

    You are a liar on so many fronts and issues Troll Tex that its REALLY pathetic..........you lied about our wager, and you lied about supporting our troops and vets and it doesnt end there.........in reality all you are is a lying shill for the GOP!

    ReplyDelete
  75. So do you hare all Veterans and soldiers TT or just the ones who disagree with you politically!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mike, do you care to admit you were wrong about impeachment and pardons, or will you continue to spin like a windwill.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Answer My questions you lying troll unless your ready to admit you CANT BECAUSE your a lying troll!

    Here, i'll even repost them for you TINY the LIAR!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Tall Texan said...
    Then again, you guys thought that Nixon was impeached and Clinton was not, so why am I not surprised."

    A couple questions Troll Tex.........

    1) Are you saying there is a difference between being convicted, and resigning like a guilty coward to avoid conviction????????????

    2) Have you ever accused people of being guilty or of committing crimes despite not having been convicted?

    Nixon was a cowardly criminal that was clearly guilty and resigned to avoid impeachment..............and most job applications ask have you EVER resigned to AVOID being fired.........thats exactly what Nixon did.

    Your NOTHING but a blindly loyal hippocrite trying to defend the repugs...........when what you are doing is essentialy defending the indefensible!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Tall Texan said...
    Mike, do you care to admit you were wrong about impeachment and pardons, or will you continue to spin like a windwill."

    Well as soon as YOU post some evidence and facts to support your claim then I surely will..............BUT until I see evidence, forgive me for not taking the mere word of a known chronic liar and a troll!

    ReplyDelete
  80. I guess you've chosen to dance like a windmill.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Evidence? I learned that in school.

    Here's a Wikipedia like that supports my position:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

    ReplyDelete
  82. What happened, forget how to make links Troll Tex?

    NOW how about answer my question you gutless liar!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  83. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  84. BTW Troll Tex, how do windmills dance??????

    Are you talking gibberish again Troll Tex to cover up your incompetence and lies???????????

    ReplyDelete
  85. What's a matta Mike? You can't look up "pardon." I correctly articulated the current state of the law, which is in opposition to what you've stated, and you're telling me you can't look up the word "pardon" on the Internet?

    ReplyDelete
  86. How many times have YOU given me a hard time for not posting links and supporting evidence little troll..............yet i'm just supposed to take you at your word despite you being a chronic liar and a hippocritial troll.

    Soulds like a double standard there Tiny the Hippocritical Liar........so i ask you AGAIN forget how to make links Troll Tex?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mike, what about me allegedly accusing you of being an anti-semite. Did you find that quote yet?

    ReplyDelete
  88. See People should not be allowed to just spew lies...........on blogs that are about truth...........even people who have NO CREDIBILITY and are laughingstocks LIKE YOU!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  89. Ok, Mike, I'll say this real slowly: Go to wikipedia.com and plug in the word pardon.

    ReplyDelete
  90. DO TRY to pay attention Troll Tex..........I never mentioned Antisemitism once today did I??????????????

    Is that a guilty conscience or something.?

    BUT since I am somewhat sympathetic to your impairment/handicap i'll repeat the question for like the 4th time I believe!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Tall Texan said...
    Then again, you guys thought that Nixon was impeached and Clinton was not, so why am I not surprised."

    A couple questions Troll Tex.........

    1) Are you saying there is a difference between being convicted, and resigning like a guilty coward to avoid conviction????????????

    2) Have you ever accused people of being guilty or of committing crimes despite not having been convicted?

    Nixon was a cowardly criminal that was clearly guilty and resigned to avoid impeachment..............and most job applications ask have you EVER resigned to AVOID being fired.........thats exactly what Nixon did.

    Your NOTHING but a blindly loyal hippocrite trying to defend the repugs...........when what you are doing is essentialy defending the indefensible!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Now why would a little troll always carping about links ans spelling just refuse to post a link and misspell a word?

    Because your a hippocritical liar THATS WHY!

    ReplyDelete
  93. Impeachment

    "The President may not in any case use his power of pardon in a case of impeachment, but may, as usual, pardon a defendant in the case of a criminal prosecution."

    ReplyDelete
  94. You have 2 standards of justice Troll Tex..........One for repugs and one for everyone else!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  95. Mike "1) Are you saying there is a difference between being convicted, and resigning like a guilty coward to avoid conviction????????????"

    TT: Yes. The result is the same but the process is different.

    A history teacher would give you an F on your interpretation.

    Mike "2) Have you ever accused people of being guilty or of committing crimes despite not having been convicted?"

    Not that I recall.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Wow, I guess it IS getting bad out there. The latest Newsweak poll shows Bush's ratings have dropped SO low he's matched Jimmy Carter.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Hey did anyone notice a Conservative won in France of all places?

    Wonder if that means anything...

    ReplyDelete
  98. Really...........looks like your lying AGAIN then little troll............are you EVER even capable of telling the truth.

    I dont know why Lydia even puts up with a slimy gutless liar like you.

    Your here for one reason to lie and cover up the truth!

    ReplyDelete
  99. tall texan said...
    Democratic President Bill Clinton RAPED Juanita Broderick.

    11:00 PM

    tall texan said...
    No long list of low-level GOP personnel can overcome a list of just two:

Ted Kennedy: murderer

Bill Clinton: rapist


    tall texan said...
    Froggy asked if Clinton was ever convicted of rape. Was OJ ever convicted of murder? Was Ted Kennedy ever convicted of manslaughter for letting that poor woman drown?"

    SO Tiny the Liar answer me this one "IF" there is a clear difference between someone who is clearly convicted of a crime and someone who is not......

    Why are YOU using a double standard one for the repugs where you lie and say they are innocent if not convicted and one for your political enemies that says they ARE GUILTY even though they were never convicted?????

    So Clearly you are a lying hippocrite with a double standard and NOT ONE SHRED OF CREDIBILITY!

    Right Tiny The Liar?



    ReplyDelete
  100. So I ask you again Tiny the Liar...........Was Clinton ever convicted of Rape?

    Was Kennedy Ever convicted of murder?

    Or are YOU just a lying troll with No credibility?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Yeah Volt cant help you now Troll Tex, your best recourse is to run away for another month like you always do when you get caugt in a lie or have your hippocrissy exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Run Run little troll!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Mike said "So I ask you again Tiny the Liar...........Was Clinton ever convicted of Rape?

    Was Kennedy Ever convicted of murder?"

    No, but they should have been, and my comments are protected by the public-figure exception to defamation law.

    No, smarten up, you're beginning to bore me here.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Why does Nixon deserve the benefit of the doubt for not being convicted.........yet Clinton and Kennedy do not according to your hippocritical double standard?

    Your hippocrissy knows no bounds Troll Tex!

    ReplyDelete
  105. Now, Mike, it's you're turn: Do you belive a president may pardon someone accused of a federal crime even if the president under impeachment?

    I know that's a lot to ask of you, so don't choke on it.

    Now let's see who's running away.

    ReplyDelete
  106. You've bored me for a long time you gutless lying halfwit punk!

    ReplyDelete
  107. Tall Texan said...
    Mike said "So I ask you again Tiny the Liar...........Was Clinton ever convicted of Rape?

    Was Kennedy Ever convicted of murder?"

    No, but they should have been, and my comments are protected by the public-figure exception to defamation law."

    Thats not an answer little cowpoke thats mumbo jumbo.......................Nixon should have been as well.............BUT THAT STILL FAILS TO ADDRESS YOUR HIPPOCRISSY.

    SEE LITTLE TROLL YOU HAD ONE STANARD OF JUSTICE FOR DEMOCRATS AND QUITE ANOTHER FOR REPUGS..............CARE TO ADDRESS THAT, OR ARE YOU TOO GUTLESS TINY THE LIAR?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Speaking of Ted "the Swimmer" Kennedy (AKA "the Cape Cod Orca"), what kind of a man drowns a woman in a car he was driving, leaves the scene and waits 24 hours before reporting this incident to the police?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Better go run away or get some troll reinforcements little halfwit operative...........because clearly you are no match for me one one Troll Tex!

    ReplyDelete
  110. What kind of piece of slime cooks intelligence to lie us into a war Troll Tex..........and What kind of man tries to profit from writing a book about it.

    The end is near for the teasonous thugs you call friend Troll Tex.........The time for honoring yourselves is over.

    ReplyDelete
  111. How many lies have you and your ilk told?

    You have no competence and no credibility!

    Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, Rice, Tenet, Yourself........almost everything out of your mouth is either a lie or dead wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  112. Mike, I already stated, right here on this blog, that Nixon likely would have faced jail time had he not been pardoned. The point is that it is historically innaccurate to say he was impeached. It is equally historically inaccurate to state that Clinton was not impeached.

    Ford did the right thing for the benefit of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  113. BTW Troll Tex wehat was that wager about again...............oh yeah you CLAIMED that the repugs would retain BOTH houses of Congress...........and when you were proven dead wrong and looked like a buffoon like usual..........you lied anmd claimed there was no wager.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Stop changing the subject. I'll repeat:
    "Now, Mike, it's you're turn: Do you belive a president may pardon someone accused of a federal crime even if the president is under impeachment?

    I know that's a lot to ask of you, so don't choke on it.

    Now let's see who's running away."

    ReplyDelete
  115. TT said "Ford did the right thing for the benefit of the country."

    BS, he should have let Nixon be held accountable for his crimes.........theres that double standard of justice one for rich powerful repugs and another for everyone else!

    ReplyDelete
  116. I did not see anything in your link to answer that question Troll Tex!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Mike, I did. I'll repost the quote:

    "The President may not in any case use his power of pardon in a case of impeachment, but may, as usual, pardon a defendant in the case of a criminal prosecution."

    ReplyDelete
  118. Tall Texan said...
    Mike, I already stated, right here on this blog, that Nixon likely would have faced jail time had he not been pardoned. The point is that it is historically innaccurate to say he was impeached. It is equally historically inaccurate to state that Clinton was not impeached. "

    Again we were not even discussing Clinton being impeached.............we were discussing your double standard how YOU can claim Nixon was innocent because he resigned to avoid conviction but yet Clinton who was never convicted was guilty.

    Its historically inaccurate to claim Clinton is guilty1

    ReplyDelete
  119. Tall Texan said...
    Mike, I did. I'll repost the quote:

    "The President may not in any case use his power of pardon in a case of impeachment, but may, as usual, pardon a defendant in the case of a criminal prosecution.""

    That context is aweful vague.........for all I know, this portion "
    "The President may not in any case use his power of pardon in a case of impeachment" could refer to his own impeachment and support premise that once the president is being impeached he cant pardon anyone...........

    ReplyDelete
  120. Another point when did I ever claim Nixon was impeached............I may have claimed that initially I however accepted correction which I felt was large semantic since no one disputes that he resigned to avoid certain impeachment.

    Its YOU who have been CLAIMING that I have been saying Nixon was impeached and thats another of your lies.

    An interesting thing though is that YOUR link claims that Nixon was removed and Clinton was aquitted..........care to explain that one??????

    ReplyDelete
  121. Mike, even if the president IS impeched, he still retains the pardon power. Only when he leaves office does he lose that power.

    Were you absent in "Civics" class when they taught civics?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Even if that is the case TRoll Tex I dont think the president can use the pardon to obstruct justice and protect himself!

    ReplyDelete
  123. LOL..........you do like to change the subject little troll.........but you STILL havent addressed YOUR double standard regarding Clinton never having been convicted of rape and your claiming there is no difference and your claiming there is a BIG difference between Nixon resigning to avoid impeachment.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Wikipedia is correct that Clinton was acquitted in the Senate trial. He was still impeached in the House.

    Wikipedia's reference to Nixon's removal is inaccurate. He did resign. Maybe FF or Volt can correct that on Wiki since I don't know how.

    If you resign, you are not technically removed. That's why he got to keep his pension, etc.

    Are you now saying that Nixon was impeached and removed?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Tall Texan said...

    If you resign, you are not technically removed. That's why he got to keep his pension, etc.


    He was discovered to be guilty of crimes, and he was given the option to resign to avoid a trial.

    If you think that somehow is superior to impeachment, other than it saved the country the time and trouble of impeaching him, then you're as inbred stupid as Clif says you are.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Tall Texan said...
    Wikipedia is correct that Clinton was acquitted in the Senate trial. He was still impeached in the House.

    Wikipedia's reference to Nixon's removal is inaccurate. He did resign. Maybe FF or Volt can correct that on Wiki since I don't know how.

    If you resign, you are not technically removed. That's why he got to keep his pension, etc.

    Are you now saying that Nixon was impeached and removed?"

    Go figure a troll posting inaccurate info.............BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  127. When you fill out a job application anywhere in this country, you will have to answer the following question.

    "Have you ever resigned from a job to avoid being fired?"

    That question, comes right after the question that asks if you've ever been fired from a job.

    Why?

    Because to someone with brains, like an employer, they're the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "Nixon was a cowardly criminal that was clearly guilty and resigned to avoid impeachment..."
    -Mike (2:19pm)

    "So I ask you again Tiny the Liar...........Was Clinton ever convicted of Rape?

    Was Kennedy Ever convicted of murder?"

    -Mike (2:36)

    " You have 2 standards of justice Troll Tex..........One for repugs and one for everyone else!!!!!!"
    -Mike (2:23pm)


    So lets see...hmmmm

    We have Nixon who WASN'T convicted, but according to Mike was obviously guilty.

    We have Clinton and Teddy Kennedy who WEREN'T convicted either but Mike feels they were innocent.

    And Mike claims that WE have a double standard?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Of course, to the asshole that resigned to avoid being fired, I am sure they are quite different.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I wouldnt ask the Foole for any help Tard Texan............his links seem to support what Clif and I say and make him look stupid as well!

    You clowns better start bringing your A-Game or your gonna keep lookinging REALLY stupid...................no more mister nice guy from me...........i'm for the truth and if you put out something that is less than truthful.............you better be ready to deal with the consequences of your hippocrissy.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Voltron said...


    We have Nixon who WASN'T convicted, but according to Mike was obviously guilty


    According to Mike, the FBI, the EVIDENCE, and pretty much everyone in the country.

    But go ahead. Waste a few hours of the blog time to debate whether or not Nixon was guilty.

    God knows you can't handle current affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Oh yea, I'm sorry.

    You come from stock that believes the 18 minutes of erased tape just "magically" disappeared.

    Just like the 5 million emails your about to be f#$$#ked in the ass Turdblossom made magically go away.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Oh yea, and O.J was innocent.....


    :|

    ReplyDelete
  134. I mean, he technically wasn't convicted of murder..... so he is innocent.

    Someone else must've cut those poor peoples heads off, and planted all the evidence on poor O.J

    ReplyDelete
  135. Maybe O.J should run for president...

    ReplyDelete
  136. Voltron said...
    "Nixon was a cowardly criminal that was clearly guilty and resigned to avoid impeachment..."
    -Mike (2:19pm)

    "So I ask you again Tiny the Liar...........Was Clinton ever convicted of Rape?

    Was Kennedy Ever convicted of murder?"
    -Mike (2:36)

    " You have 2 standards of justice Troll Tex..........One for repugs and one for everyone else!!!!!!"
    -Mike (2:23pm)


    So lets see...hmmmm

    We have Nixon who WASN'T convicted, but according to Mike was obviously guilty.

    We have Clinton and Teddy Kennedy who WEREN'T convicted either but Mike feels they were innocent.

    And Mike claims that WE have a double standard?"

    Sorry O interference runner but show me ONE instance where I ever said whether "I" felt Clinton or Kennedy were innocent or Guilty............it never happened ..............thasts a lie............I was merely pointing out YOUR associates hippocrissy for doing so............do I think Nixon was guilty...........Damn straight and I dont think you'd get many arguments there.

    But dont try to grasp at straws I was pointed out facts........something YOU clowns seem to loathe, and the facts were Clinton was NEVER convicted of Rape............never ONCE did I express my personal opinion on the matter despite your dishonest spin Volt!

    ReplyDelete
  137. On the republican ticket of course...


    :|

    ReplyDelete
  138. They're the only ones smart enough to know that guys like him are innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Like I told you guys you BETTER start bringing YOUR A-Game if you even habe one or your gonna look REAL stupid!

    ReplyDelete
  140. Mike, your "A" game is claiming that Nixon was impeached and Clinton was not. I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Nixon WOULD have been impeached if he didn't take the easy way out and "CUT-N-RUN".


    Thats all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Clinton on the other hand, did not get impeached by the Congress, only the lower house.

    And he did not resign.

    Why?


    Cause he got a blow job, and the country told the anal retentive limp dick pious hypocrites in the republican House, to "get a life".

    ReplyDelete
  143. Worf, "would have" is not the same as "did."

    ReplyDelete
  144. It was GOSSIP.

    Nothing more.

    Self righteous pious hypocrites, whose fascination with others genitailia leave one to believe they are lacking their own.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Worf: "Clinton on the other hand, did not get impeached by the Congress, only the lower house."

    I never claimed otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Tall Texan said...
    Worf, "would have" is not the same as "did."



    It is to an employer.

    And it was to the country.

    ReplyDelete
  147. I NEVER said either thing more than once and immediately corrected myself but like a slimy liar you keep repeating what i said BEFORE correcting myself.........it shows you have NOTHING NADA to REALLY focus on.............if you admitted an error and corrected yourself and i kept repeating the error but omitting the correction that is a form of lying...............and only an inbred dum as dirt piece of GARBAGE would ever do such a thing........why that is tolerated from a dirtbag repug troll like YOU I still cant understand!

    ReplyDelete
  148. "CURIOUS WORFEUS said...
    It was GOSSIP."

    DNA tests proved otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  149. BUT if you think YOUR the A-Game Simple Simon..............you losers are worse off than I even imagined.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Tall Texan said...
    "CURIOUS WORFEUS said...
    It was GOSSIP."

    DNA tests proved otherwise.



    I never said he didn't get the blow job you halfwit.

    But your obsession with it shows you're just another limpdick prick like the bastards who went after him. You are more concerned about Clintons COCK, then you were the country.

    ReplyDelete
  151. How bout we jump back to the present Troll Tex:

    1) Do You think Gonzalez will resignt to avoid impeachment?

    2) Or do you think Congress will impeach the the incompetent criminal?

    ReplyDelete
  152. personally i'd rather see the SOB impeached because it will smack the "DECIDER" in the snout and show him he doesnt call all the shots.

    ReplyDelete
  153. They're just jealous Mike, because Clinton got his cock sucked, and their tiny offerings have little hope of seeing the inside of a female mouth.


    Human females anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Homeschooled Texan said...
    "CURIOUS WORFEUS said...
    It was GOSSIP."

    DNA tests proved otherwise



    And by the way Felonius, it is GOSSIP.

    GOSSIP doesn't have to be false to be gossip, genius.

    ReplyDelete
  155. "CURIOUS WORFEUS said...
    They're just jealous Mike, because Clinton got his cock sucked, and their tiny offerings have little hope of seeing the inside of a female mouth.


    Human females anyway.

    4:05 PM"

    This, coming from a self-proclaimed celibate?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Let me ask you this Troll Tex...........if Bush can issue 750 signing statements and the repugs can CLAIM that "if the president does it its not illegal"

    Then what was illegal about what Clinton did..............shouldnt he have just issued signing statements proclaiming his right to comit perjury or get blow jobs to his hearts content and everything would have been hunky dory with you Unitary Executive Buffons?

    OR AGAIN IS THERE ANOTHER DOUBLE STANDARD JUST FOR REPUGS?????????????

    ReplyDelete
  157. The poor twits are also upset because Clinton was LOVED by the people.

    The only ones who didn't like Clinton were the pious hypocrites of this country.

    You know.

    The same ones who'se names we found plastered throughout the Pamela Martin phone directory.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Tall Texan said...
    This, coming from a self-proclaimed celibate?


    Celibate doesn't mean dead genius.

    But feel free.

    Tell us YOUR reason for your obsession with Bill Clintons COCK.

    We're all ears.

    ReplyDelete
  159. When Bill Clinton was impeached in the lower house, he enjoyed an unprecedented approval rating that reached well into the 70 percent range.

    Bush on the other hand has been HATED since the day he seized power.

    He was pelted with rotten eggs as he took office, and he is the most hated man in all the world, both in his own country and abroad.

    But these idiots think they have something to be arrogant about.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Well no matter.

    Life has a way of bitchsmacking the proud and arrogant into reality.

    And I hear a big SMACK a comin.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Tall Texan said...
    "CURIOUS WORFEUS said...
    They're just jealous Mike, because Clinton got his cock sucked, and their tiny offerings have little hope of seeing the inside of a female mouth.


    Human females anyway.

    4:05 PM"

    This, coming from a self-proclaimed celibate?"

    Hey loser there is a difference from people who CHOOSE celibacy and those who have it forced on them unless they resort to rape or prostitution and that fits a LOT more repugs than liberals.

    repugs are predominantly antisocial ill adjusted anal compulsive children.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Hey TT. Wanna hear something funny?





    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT
    HATCH ACT

    ReplyDelete
  163. Let me ask you this Troll Tex...........if Bush can issue 750 signing statements and the repugs can CLAIM that "if the president does it its not illegal"

    Then what was illegal about what Clinton did..............shouldnt he have just issued signing statements proclaiming his right to comit perjury or get blow jobs to his hearts content and everything would have been hunky dory with you Unitary Executive Buffoons?

    OR AGAIN IS THERE ANOTHER DOUBLE STANDARD JUST FOR REPUGS?????????????

    ReplyDelete
  164. Hey Mike.

    I hear theres a good fight coming up on PayPerView.


    Karl the Turdblossom Rove vs Carl the STICKITINURAZZ Hatch.


    Should be a great match.

    ReplyDelete
  165. You know, now that we KNOW the Turdblossom HAS to testify under oath, I wonder what he'll say?

    :o

    Oh my.

    I hope he doesn't say anything to embarrass the president....

    ReplyDelete
  166. Your hero's are going to go down one by one Troll Tex..........and I hope its a slow agonizing neverending process right through to the election..............so the public will be aware of WHAT you clowns really are and you get drubbed 10 times worse than last time.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Cat must have got your tongue Troll Tex?

    ReplyDelete
  168. You too can join the Talll Texan Turdblossom Gang.

    Just send 10,000 dollars along with your conscience, your brain, and any other characteristics that might allow you to see things clearly to P.O Box 555 Volksturm Lane, Crawdad Texas 22666.

    Oh and don't forget to include a self addressed stamped envelope if you want your shredded conscience returned when they're done with it.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Stop changing the subject. I'll repeat:
    "Now, Mike, it's your turn: Do you belive a president may pardon someone accused of a federal crime even if the president is under impeachment?

    I know that's a lot to ask of you, so don't choke on it.

    Now let's see who's running away."

    ReplyDelete
  170. CURIOUS WORFEUS said...
    You too can join the Talll Texan Turdblossom Gang.

    Just send 10,000 dollars along with your conscience, your brain, and any other characteristics that might allow you to see things clearly to P.O Box 555 Volksturm Lane, Crawdad Texas 22666.

    Oh and don't forget to include a self addressed stamped envelope if you want your shredded conscience returned when they're done with it."

    That might be difficult for the little troll since Obviously he doesnt have ANY of the above..............we allready KNOW the welcher doesnt have $10,000........We also KNOW the little troll doesnt have a conscience or a brain either!

    ReplyDelete
  171. I havent seen anything to definatively convince me one way or another Troll Tex..........like I said your a proven liar with NO CREDIBILITY..........so just because YOU claim to know something doesnt carry much weight with me.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Tall Texan said...
    Stop changing the subject. I'll repeat:
    "Now, Mike, it's your turn: Do you belive a president may pardon someone accused of a federal crime even if the president is under impeachment?

    I know that's a lot to ask of you, so don't choke on it.


    Mikes changing the subject?

    When the hell did we start talking about this?

    Last I heard you were still mesmerized by Bill Clintons COCK.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Well ok. So I don't have to scroll up I'll just answer it for you TT.


    "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT in cases of IMPEACHMENT."

    US Constitution

    ReplyDelete
  174. I'm sure you already knew that and was just doing the Texan TwitWhistle dance to make someone check.

    So I'll be your huckleberry.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Talll Texan said "And, please, don't back with what you are GOING to do. When or if it happens, let me know. Results are always more persuasive than idle boasts. If I recall correctly, you guys boasted of winning back the House and Senate."


    Finally something we AGREE on TRoll Tex............results certainly are more persuaive than idle boasts...............ohh BTW, just letting YOU know that WE DID win back both the Senate and the House...........and YOU were WRONG AGAIN AS USUAL!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  176. Here TT.

    Here's another "fun fact" from Article II you might enjoy.


    The President, Vice President and ALL civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and MISDEMEANORS.

    ReplyDelete
  177. "CURIOUS WORFEUS said...
    Well ok. So I don't have to scroll up I'll just answer it for you TT.


    "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT in cases of IMPEACHMENT."

    US Constitution"

    That means that the chief excutive may not pardon subjects of impeachment matters. He may still pardon subjects of federal criminal actions, or convicted felons (guilty of breaking a federal law).

    I researched this awhile ago, but I'm not going to run up my Lexus account on non-business activities.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Worfeus, being wrong in a prediction is far different that being wrong about the BIGGEST story of the 70s.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Yea and I've researched it too sparky.

    And it means that the congress can FREEZE the presidents power to pardon, so he can't circumvent the congress in extracting testimony from a criminal defendent.

    You're full of shit if you think we're going to let losers like you prop up a king in this country, Benedict.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Tall Texan said...
    Worfeus, being wrong in a prediction is far different that being wrong about the BIGGEST story of the 70s.





    What are you babbling about here?

    Who's wrong about what and who the hell is predicting it?

    ReplyDelete
  181. Could you try to keep at least some point of reference to your Tourette's-like posts?

    ReplyDelete
  182. Ok, well you've wasted enough of my evening.

    chow for now.

    ReplyDelete
  183. The president does not have the power to immunize anyone from being compelled to testify before COngress, which was your point, I assume. However, the Congress may not prevent the executive from excercising his pardon power in purely criminal (and federal) matters.

    ReplyDelete
  184. The BIGGEST story of the 70s was Nixon's resignation. (Like I should really have to tell you the obvious.)

    ReplyDelete
  185. You got Nada little halfwit every time YOU pull up one of Clifs old posts to make fun of him, or try to refer to a post of mine that I have ALLREADY clarified as the truth when its a lie.........just shows how desperate you are.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Tall Texan said...
    The BIGGEST story of the 70s was Nixon's resignation. (Like I should really have to tell you the obvious.)"

    Maybe for a rabib partisan like YOU it was the biggest story of the 1970's for most people I doubt it.............it was a repug criminal who got a small portion of justice............but accountability.......not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  187. "Mike said...
    Tall Texan said...
    The BIGGEST story of the 70s was Nixon's resignation. (Like I should really have to tell you the obvious.)"

    Maybe for a rabib partisan like YOU it was the biggest story of the 1970's for most people I doubt it.............it was a repug criminal who got a small portion of justice............but accountability.......not so much.

    5:02 PM"

    Fine, Mike. Tell me what story was bigger than Watergate and Nixon's resignation in the 70s.

    ReplyDelete
  188. you bore me little lying welch!

    ReplyDelete
  189. you bore me little lying welch!

    ReplyDelete
  190. Tall Texan said...
    The president does not have the power to immunize anyone from being compelled to testify before COngress, which was your point, I assume. However, the Congress may not prevent the executive from excercising his pardon power in purely criminal (and federal) matters.



    Why is it you always only respond when I say I'm leaving?

    I don't have time for slow responses so if you can't keep up, just say so, and send in someone a little brighter.

    As for your response?

    You should have taken longer.

    Of course the president can protect someone from testifying before congress.

    What the hell do you think Bush has been doing so far?

    Don't you have access to a TV where you live?

    ReplyDelete
  191. "Mike said...
    you bore me little lying welch!

    5:07 PM"

    Another well-thought-out argument that sticks to the issues. Tell me when you get tired of me mopping the floor with you.

    ReplyDelete
  192. But as for MY point, my point was clear.

    If the congress investigated someone, and found evidence to have him tried, and he was found guilty, and was an official privy to knowledge the congress wants, then prior to sentencing, he would be offered an opportuntity to testify to congress about these matters to which he is privy.

    However the president can block that, by pardoning him as soon as he is found guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  193. If the only leverage that the congress can utilize to determine criminality at the executive level is trimming a prison sentence, then the president pardoning that person would permit the president to impede an investigation into himself or his own office.

    ReplyDelete
  194. And of course that would never pass for law with Americans, even in a republican world.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Worf: "However the president can block that, by pardoning him as soon as he is found guilty."

    The president can pardon the person even before the start of or during the prosecution.

    That's what Ford did with Nixon.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Which is why in "cases of impeachment", where the President or one of his staff is facing impeachment, his power to pardon can be frozen, especially if he is attempting to pardon an involved party to the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Tall Texan said... The president can pardon the person even before the start of or during the prosecution.

    That's what Ford did with Nixon


    No.Ford wasn't under investigation by Congress for impeachment.

    ReplyDelete
  198. If you read The Final Days by Woodward and Bernstein, you'll recall that Nixon seriously considered pardoning himself, but that would only have applied to criminal prosecutions. He could never have used the pardon power to stop the Congress from going ahead with an impeachment finding or a trial by the Senate for removal.

    ReplyDelete