^_^

you raise an interesting point at the end there: I'm suprised you haven't quoted the arrest numbers: 1.7 million arrested crossing the border in 2000. 1.1 million in 2005 (low point in 2003). That's more of an argument than nebulously claiming that more illegals have jobs and more businesses are hiring them. While Clinton was emphasizing hitting companies that employed illegals, he neglected the borders themselves. The border guard weakened and the technology at the border wasn't improved. Bush has corrected both of those. # of arrests by border patrol 1996: 1,549,876 1997:1,412,953 1998:1,555,776 1999:1,579,010 2000:1,676,438 ------------------ bush ------------------ 2001:1,266,214 2002:955,310 2003:931,557 2004: n/a 2005:~1,100,000 you are right clinton was so bad that not only was he harder on those that hired illegals he got better results at the border himself. the bush results are a lot lower than the clinton results. funny thing is bush spent a lot more than clinton and didn't get nearly as much in the way of results: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Featur...play.cfm?id=370 so i guess you are right bush is trying, he just can't get results. yaaay for trying! but remember: While Clinton was emphasizing hitting companies that employed illegals, he neglected the borders themselves. The border guard weakened and the technology at the border wasn't improved. Bush has corrected both of those. oops? Show me statistics saying more illegals have jobs, or that there are more businesses hiring them. The fact is you can make more money begging in the streets than you can working full time in Mexico. Heck, a lot of beggars make more money than me. So how do you know more illegals have jobs and more businesses are hiring them? How does anyone since MOST illegals are working day to day on cash basis jobs. as shocking as this is illegals won't disclose their illegality and business won't openly admit they hire illegals. but it is common sense. illegals come here for money and farmers and resturant owners, sanitation companies, know where they can find their cheap miracle workers and the illegals know how to find people who are willing to pay them. if there was no more money to be had the illegals would stop coming but they dont and they keep making money to send back home, someone is paying them. 2) failed to provide adequate border security 2) Depends on your definition of adequate. It has improved under his watch a great deal. Is it good enough, no. But it is better. so care to tell me how you came to that conclusion?

I think the Republicans would appreciate his effort, at least. hagel is against it ahhhhnold is against it a number of texans are against it (citizens not neccesarily politicos) i will be surprised what mccain has to say about this.

Yes, fining 3 employers is definitely off *not looking at source* but they numbers you list actually look appropriate. but considering the previous year was 162... There's not even a trend on the fines, just a lot of up and down let's look at some vocabulary trend: "The general drift or tendency in a set of data." www.riverdeep.net/students/glossaries/algebra/Glossary.jhtml do you not understand the idea behind a trend? not every single data point has to be going down but a trend is that the average over time is going downwards. much like the downwards trend in the number of fines. 2003 would be what one would call an outlier. so saying it dropped to 3 over a 5 year period is misleading at best. would you rather me point out: -clinton fined 277 more companies in his last 2 years than bush did in his entire first term? -or that bush fined 46% less companies for hiring illegals in 2 less years? Like I said, show me a manpower/hour drop and I'll buy it. what difference is it? if i showed you they used more man power and more hours would that make it better? hell if they did that or even used the same then i think americans have been robbed of money. it is common sense really: -only more illegals are showing up -only more illegals have more jobs -only more businesses are hiring illegals -illegals are making up more of the work force -all this in the face of a "better intelligence agency" and there are less and less arrests and fines? that is sounding like lazy work to me. here in america we celebrate results trying is nothing. and right now bush is not getting results.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/SNL-Al-Gore-5-14.mov last night's opening

Alabama Democrat?s views shock his party Attorney general contender wants to ?reawaken white racial awareness? Image: Admin Darby Admin Darby, founder of the Atheist Law Center, has surprised fellow Democrats with his belief the Holocaust didn?t happen. Updated: 8:13 p.m. ET May 12, 2006 BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Democratic Party leaders are wondering what to do about a candidate for attorney general who denies the Holocaust occurred and wants to ?reawaken white racial awareness.? Admin Darby, the founder of the Atheist Law Center, made an abortive bid for the attorney general job as a Libertarian in 2002, but only recently have his views on race and the Holocaust come to light. He has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches, but garnered 12 percent support in the June 6 primary in a poll of 400 registered voters last month. Story continues below ↓ advertisement The poll, which was conducted by a university professor for Alabama media outlets and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, shows Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson ahead with 21 percent of the vote but about two-thirds of respondents undecided. The state Democratic chairman, Joe Turnham, said the party began an investigation last week after hearing about some of Darby?s comments in a television interview. While the party supports the free-speech rights of any candidate, Turnham said some of Darby?s views appear to be in ?a realm of thought that is unacceptable.? ?Any type of hatred toward groups of people, especially for political gain, is completely unacceptable in the Alabama Democratic Party,? said Turnham. It is unclear whether the party could do anything at this point, although the party could decline to certify the results should he win. Said typhus, not Holocaust, killed Jews In an interview Friday with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to typhus. Historians say about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the ?Holocaust industry.? Darby said he will speak Saturday near Newark, N.J., at a meeting of National Vanguard, which bills itself as an advocate for the white race. Some of his campaign materials are posted on the group?s Internet site. ?It?s time to stop pushing down the white man. We?ve been discriminated against too long,? Darby said in the interview. Tyson said he does not consider Darby to be a serious candidate. ?I am astonished as anyone has ever been that anyone is running for public office in Alabama on that platform,? he said. The winner of the Democratic primary will face either Attorney General Troy King or Mark Montiel, his opponent in the Republican primary. ? 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762671/

Vice president argued for domestic wiretapping without warrants By Scott Shane and Eric Lichtblau WASHINGTON In the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e- mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials. But lawyers at the agency, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any warrantless eavesdropping, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the White House late in 2001. The agency's position ultimately prevailed. Details have not emerged publicly of how the director of the agency at the time, General Michael Hayden, designed the program, persuaded wary agency officers to accept it and sold the White House on its limits. Whatever the internal deliberations, Hayden was the program's overseer and has become its chief salesman. He is certain to face questions about his role when he appears at a Senate hearing this week on his nomination as director of the CIA. Criticism of the surveillance program flared again last week with the disclosure that the security agency had collected the phone records of millions of Americans to track terror suspects. By several accounts, Hayden, a 61- year-old U.S. Air Force officer who left the agency in April of last year to become the principal deputy director of national intelligence, was the man in the middle as President George W. Bush demanded that intelligence agencies act urgently to stop future attacks. On one side was a strong-willed vice president and his longtime legal adviser, David Addington, who believed that the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take sweeping measures to defend the country. Later, Cheney would personally arrange tightly controlled briefings on the program for select members of Congress. On the other side was the largest U.S. intelligence agency, which was battered by eavesdropping scandals in the 1970s and has since wielded its powerful technology with extreme care to avoid accusations of spying on Americans. As in other areas of intelligence collection, including interrogation methods for suspected terrorists, Cheney and Addington took an aggressive view of what was permissible under the Constitution, said the two senior intelligence officials. If people suspected of links to Al Qaeda made calls inside the United States, the vice president and Addington argued that eavesdropping without warrants "could be done and should be done," one of the officials said. "That's not what the NSA lawyers think," he added, referring to the agency. The other official said there was "a very healthy debate" over the issue. The vice president's staff was "pushing and pushing, and it was up to the agency lawyers to draw a line and say absolutely not." Both officials said they were speaking about the internal discussion because of the importance of the national security and civil liberty issues involved and because the interplay between Cheney's office and the intelligence agencies is usually hidden from public view. Both spoke favorably of Hayden; one expressed no view on his nomination for the CIA job, and the other was interviewed by The New York Times weeks before Bush selected him. Cheney's spokeswoman, Lee Anne McBride, declined to discuss the deliberations about the classified program. "This is terrorist surveillance, not domestic surveillance," McBride said. "The vice president has explained this wartime measure is limited in scope and conducted in a lawful way that safeguards our civil liberties." Spokespeople for the agency and for Hayden declined to comment. Even with the agency lawyers' reported success in narrowing the program, critics say that it is nonetheless illegal and that it should have never been created. For the first time since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978, the agency was targeting Americans and others inside the country for eavesdropping without warrants. The spying that would become such a divisive issue for the White House and for Hayden grew out of a meeting days after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Bush gathered his senior intelligence aides to brainstorm about ways to head off another attack. "Is there anything more we could be doing, given the current laws?" the president later recalled asking. Hayden stepped forward. "There is," he said, according to Bush's recounting of the conversation in March during a town-hall-style meeting in Cleveland. By all accounts, Hayden was the principal designer of the plan. He saw the opportunity to use the agency's enormous technological capabilities by loosening restrictions on its operations inside the United States. For his part, Cheney helped justify the program with an expansive theory of presidential power, which he explained to reporters a few days after The Times first reported on the program in December. Cheney traced his views to his service as chief of staff to President Gerald Ford in the 1970s, when post-Watergate changes, which included the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, "served to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in a national security area." Senior intelligence officials outside the agency who discussed the matter in late 2001 with Hayden said he accepted the White House and Justice Department argument that the president, as commander in chief, had the authority to approve such eavesdropping. "Hayden was no cowboy on this," said another former intelligence official who was granted anonymity because the program remains classified. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/14/news/hayden.php

*not looking at source* but they numbers you list actually look appropriate. man you need some help. are there more or less illegals in the us now versus the clinton administration? more illegals are coming and finding jobs. the more illegals there are here the more illegals have jobs. which means there should be more arrests and fines. if the intelligence agency is working better now, by your own word, then we should be finding more and more of these businesses. but i fail to see how going from fining 417 employers to 3 employers in a 5 year span seems appropriate in this climate. its called an education i suggest you get one. :thumbup republicans need to realize it is no longer about clinton because at this point he will not make this country better or worse. just like nixon, reagan, carter, kennedy, eisenhower, bush sr, etc can not change where this country is heading.

marlins v pirates has the same chance of getting any play as fiu v fau football.

it seems many people on both sides of the aisle are against this idea mainly for the reason of stretch the national guard troops too thin. some say it is because the troops do not have the proper training for this because they will be in the background only. either way it is clear that republicans are beginning to distance themselves from bush.

Reports: Blair to Leave Office in '07 Sunday May 14, 2006 11:01 PM AP Photo VM157 LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair has told ministers that he plans to leave office in the summer of 2007, according to news reports Sunday. Blair has said he plans to serve a full third term, but this week reassured lawmakers from his governing Labour Party that he would step aside in time for his successor to settle into office before the next general election, expected in 2009. The Independent on Sunday newspaper said a Cabinet minister, asked whether Blair had said he would go next summer, responded: ``I'm not going to tell you exactly what Tony said but I wouldn't disagree with that.'' The newspaper quoted another unidentified minister as saying that ``almost half the Cabinet'' has now been given private assurances about a departure date by Blair. Blair's office refused to comment on the reports on Sunday, and Blair is refusing to confirm the arrangement in public because he fears the main opposition Conservative Party will start a countdown, the newspaper said. The prime minister's battle to shift the spotlight away from his political intentions intensified after his Labour Party placed third in local elections earlier this month. The Mail on Sunday said senior government sources reported that Blair told Treasury chief Gordon Brown, his likely successor, in February that he would resign in July 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5821825,00.html

2) Depends on your definition of adequate. It has improved under his watch a great deal. Is it good enough, no. But it is better. 3) Clinton did much more harm to the intelligence community than Bush did. Bush actually undid some of the harm from the Clinton administration. 2- why is there a problem at the border? because we have companies this side of the border offering to hire and pay illegals. clinton came down hard on companies who hired these illegals trying to cut down on the reason and oppurtunities for illegals. if no one hired illegals or paid them then they wouldn't come. under bush we have seen a STEEP decline in arrests and charges against these companies. the report went from 1999-2004 # of fines: 1999: 417 2000:178 --------------- bush takes over --------------- 2001 100 2002 53 2003 162 2004 3 # of arrests: 1999: 2,849 2000: 953 --------------- bush takes over --------------- 2001 795 2002 495 2003 445 2004 n/a http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05822t.pdf 3- bush has turned the agencies against eachother and most of them against the government. the cia hated having goss at its helm and they also are not happy with hayden at all. but it is bush's way to give them the middle finger a good thing you want to do i guess he doesnt care that the doj is not being allowed to investigate the nsa bush hasn't shown he can understand intelligence let alone reprimand those in his administration who lie to him about it see iraq war and condi rice and powell.

cali's gov. (arnold) and nm's (richardson) gov. are against the idea Bush militarises Mexican border to appease Right From Tom Baldwin in Washington GEORGE BUSH will today announce the deployment of thousands of US troops to the border with Mexico to stem illegal immigration. In a televised address, his first since December, President Bush will hope to repair deep Republican rifts over immigration and restore some momentum to his Administration. He will put fresh emphasis on the need to fix holes in America?s porous border with Mexico, which has helped more than 11 million illegal immigrants to slip into the US in recent years. A package of security measures is expected to include the promise that border areas will be militarised in effect by the deployment of thousands of National Guardsmen. This is a concession aimed at conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives who have been threatening to wreck a compromise deal on immigration reform. The White House has tacitly backed proposals, due to be debated again this week in the Senate, that would grant legal ?guest worker? status to millions of undocumented workers already in the US and put them on the path to citizenship. Mr Bush believes that such a scheme is the only way to satisfy the needs of the economy for cheap and plentiful labour. After marches by millions of Latino workers in recent weeks, the Republican leadership in the Senate has also been persuaded to support the plan. But it remains sharply at odds with a hardline Bill passed last December by Republican congressmen in the House of Representatives who are possibly more in touch with the party?s conservative base. This would spend billions of dollars building new fences along the Mexican border, as well as making felons of undocumented workers without offering them any route to legality. The split comes before crucial mid-term elections this November when Democrats hope to regain control of Congress ? and confirm Mr Bush as a lame-duck president. Tonight?s broadcast will be the first TV address made by Mr Bush on a domestic issue since he entered the White House more than five years ago. The power to speak directly to the American people is called the presidency?s ?bully-pulpit?, but it is also one of the last pieces of political weaponry remaining in the arsenal of an increasingly desperate Administration. Mr Bush, whose approval ratings fell to 29 per cent in a Wall Street Journal poll on Friday, has been damaged by his handling of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and rising petrol prices. He will be speaking tonight at the start of another testing week. Political opponents are seizing on new disclosures on the extent of the Administration?s domestic surveillance programme, which they claim may have breached the law. Karl Rove, Mr Bush?s senior strategist, has made plain that this is a fight he is happy to have with Democrats because he believes voters care more about national security than civil liberties. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...2180771,00.html

cali's gov. (arnold) and nm's gov. (richardson) are against the idea Bush militarises Mexican border to appease Right From Tom Baldwin in Washington GEORGE BUSH will today announce the deployment of thousands of US troops to the border with Mexico to stem illegal immigration. In a televised address, his first since December, President Bush will hope to repair deep Republican rifts over immigration and restore some momentum to his Administration. He will put fresh emphasis on the need to fix holes in America?s porous border with Mexico, which has helped more than 11 million illegal immigrants to slip into the US in recent years. A package of security measures is expected to include the promise that border areas will be militarised in effect by the deployment of thousands of National Guardsmen. This is a concession aimed at conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives who have been threatening to wreck a compromise deal on immigration reform. The White House has tacitly backed proposals, due to be debated again this week in the Senate, that would grant legal ?guest worker? status to millions of undocumented workers already in the US and put them on the path to citizenship. Mr Bush believes that such a scheme is the only way to satisfy the needs of the economy for cheap and plentiful labour. After marches by millions of Latino workers in recent weeks, the Republican leadership in the Senate has also been persuaded to support the plan. But it remains sharply at odds with a hardline Bill passed last December by Republican congressmen in the House of Representatives who are possibly more in touch with the party?s conservative base. This would spend billions of dollars building new fences along the Mexican border, as well as making felons of undocumented workers without offering them any route to legality. The split comes before crucial mid-term elections this November when Democrats hope to regain control of Congress ? and confirm Mr Bush as a lame-duck president. Tonight?s broadcast will be the first TV address made by Mr Bush on a domestic issue since he entered the White House more than five years ago. The power to speak directly to the American people is called the presidency?s ?bully-pulpit?, but it is also one of the last pieces of political weaponry remaining in the arsenal of an increasingly desperate Administration. Mr Bush, whose approval ratings fell to 29 per cent in a Wall Street Journal poll on Friday, has been damaged by his handling of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and rising petrol prices. He will be speaking tonight at the start of another testing week. Political opponents are seizing on new disclosures on the extent of the Administration?s domestic surveillance programme, which they claim may have breached the law. Karl Rove, Mr Bush?s senior strategist, has made plain that this is a fight he is happy to have with Democrats because he believes voters care more about national security than civil liberties. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...2180771,00.html

That has to be one of the best SNL openings ever with Gore. That was soooo dang funny it was just perfect with the alternate unniverse with him as president. i wanna see it!! check youtube tomorrow

All 50 States Failing Teacher Qualifications Friday, May 12, 2006 WASHINGTON ? Not a single state will have a highly qualified teacher in every core class this school year as promised by President Bush's education law. Nine states along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico face penalties. The Education Department on Friday ordered every state to explain how it will have 100 percent of its core teachers qualified ? belatedly ? in the 2006-07 school year. In the meantime, some states face the loss of federal aid because they didn't make enough effort to comply on time, officials said. They are Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina and Washington, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. "At some point there was, I suspect, a little bit of notion that 'This too shall pass,'" said Henry Johnson, the assistant secretary over elementary and secondary education. "Well, the day of reckoning is here, and it's not going to pass." Department officials would not say how much aid could be withheld from states to force compliance. But Johnson said, "In some cases, we're talking about large amounts of money." States often fell short because they did not report accurate or complete data about the quality of the teacher corps, said Rene Islas, who oversees the department's review. The 4-year-old No Child Left Behind law says teachers must have a bachelor's degree, a state license and proven competency in every subject they teach by this year. The first federal order of its kind, it applies to teachers of math, history and any other core class. In grading the states, the department found that 29 have made substantial progress. They must improve but do not face looming sanctions. Twelve other states are still under review and haven't been rated: Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. No matter which category they are in, all the states must submit a new plan of action. Most states give themselves good grades on teacher quality; 33 states say 90 percent to 99 percent of their classes are taught by highly qualified teachers. Most of the rest put their numbers a tier below, in a range of 70 percent to 89 percent. "I know the states have made great efforts in trying to meet all the prongs of the highly qualified teacher requirement," said Scott Palmer, a consultant for the Council of Chief State School Officers. "I've got to believe there are some that are very close." As for the ones that aren't, Palmer said he hopes the department will recognize the ways states are trying to improve teacher effectiveness, even beyond the basics the law requires. States were notified Friday. The department plans to follow up in coming days. What the agency wants to see most, Johnson said, is what states are doing to get experienced teachers into classrooms with large numbers of poor and minority children. The fact that no state complied with the law on time ? four years after Bush signed it with great fanfare ? is due in part to the enormity of the challenge. Some teachers, particularly in small or rural areas, handle many subjects and have not met the law's details in each one. Many schools struggle just to find teachers in math, science or special education. And turnover is common, often blamed on salary and stress. Although the federal term is "highly qualified," the definition is widely regarded as more of a minimum qualification, because it requires teachers to know what they teach. Phyllis McClure, who supports the law and tracks it for the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, said the department is right to demand accurate data and results from the states. "They don't like having to do all this," said McClure, a supporter of the law. "I must say that they have become used to getting their way with the federal government." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195336,00.html

you can steal from it if you want, I just add pictures I like as I come across them. :thumbup

I would be careful in week one with QB selection, remember what happened to Palmer? he had a previous injury prior to the game and he went out after Kimo accidently tore his ACL. btw im not trying to say "start Harrington so the Steelers can have a better chance" i don't think the dolphins win week 1 no matter the qb i respect the steelers enough for that. i love the dolphins and all but opening night in pitt their first game after the s.b. win lets just say i have that penciled in as a loss. and then the 3 games after week one should be breezes even with harrington at the helms so i don't think daunte should be rushed. lets make sure he is 100% and the line is in order before we invite him back onto the field.

if culpepper plays week 1 i will put money down he won't be playing week 2, or week 3, or week 4.... the steelers know how to blitz and well the fins have yet to prove they can block for a stationary qb let alone one who moves around and they aren't used to moving the pocket.

maybe maybe not it is still early. and even if it is then it is sheer luck because this is a brand new staff top to bottom when it comes to pitching and coaching in general with this team. we've had luck with reviving guys but also the luck of getting ex-closers who still stunk it works both ways and evens out over time.

if you like matrix-y kinda stuff read Neuromancer that book is what basically created the genre of cyberpunk in the 1980s. the guy who wrote that novel also wrote the short story Johnny Nmemonic a few years later.

who is your choice? we didnt really have much :plain ask this question after every loss like this and you will always get the same answer: whoever girardi didn't pick.

there are rumors rove has informed bush and others he will be indicted in the next week. a lot of blogs have picked up on this and chris mathews touched on the matter earlier saying it is a matter of hours before he is indicted. there are also rumors that the whistle blower in the NSA that disclosed the domestic spying back in dec. that the NSA was listening and wiretapping is going to speak infront of a committee this week and is going to disclose more of what he characterizes as "illegal" operations which included, but not limited to, the use of spy sats. domestically.

People are dumb. yeah well the democrats want those "dumb" people to vote for them in just under 6 months so they better try and win them over 'cause calling them "dumb" won't win them back the house or senate.