US News
Sep 21, 2007, 18:47 GMT
Democratic fundraiser Hsu ordered held without bail
And Also
Similar articles
- Would-be assassin of US president Ford released from prison (Roundup)
- Would-be assassin of US president Gerald Ford released from prison
- Obama puts spotlight on murder of abortion doctor (News Feature)
- US lawmakers seek citizenship for Binghamton shooting victims
- Arkansas state Democratic Party chairman shot dead
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
- 2. It's official: Tiger Woods' injuries were slight (3rd Lead)
- 3. Tiger Woods treated after car accident (2nd Lead)
- 4. Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident (1st Lead)
- 5. REPORT: Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
This guy is the money pimp for the democrats, runs on state charges and they need to think about holding him????
God, wait until they sweat the go-betweens!
There you go again SP4 ... more of your one-sided, controversy whore, hypocrite dribble.
Why don't you mention Abramoff? Or the picture of him with your boy Bush?
Another classic example of the left not asking for the same level of integrity from their politicians that they would expect of Bush. The same applied to Enron when democrats were caught taking money from them as well.
This is why AG Gonzales is gone. He busted too many Congressmen. Now, it's Hillarys turn. Always the asian businessmen....
YOU FOOL ... are the one who failed to ask the same of YOUR politicians ... I point out your hypocrisy in attacking Hillary's errors without mentioning Bush's.
You're such a stupid ass.
I didn't ...
And you saying I didn't apply the same standard is just more of your false ass-umptions SP4.
That's all you have SP4, besides your hatred for libs, is your false ass-umptions.
All the crap you spew about Bush and the front runner dem is up to her bowlegs in feces.
The choice part: It's round two for Hillary! Yes, libnazis, This is the second go-around for her and her band of bandits! Lets stroll down memory lane....one...more...time....:
White water
FBI record scandal
Chinese campaign funds scandal (deja vu)
Travel office/Vince Foster scandal (bang!)
Russian campaign funds scandal
Law Office lost docs scandal
Hsu Scandal (chinese scandal part deux)
Yes folks the Clintons make Richard Nixon look like Richard Simmons.
You can go on and on with your mindless dribble SP4, but even a fool like you can read the writing on the wall ... Your neo-con party is gonna lose the white house next year.
The vast majority of voters are thoroughly disgusted with what the neo-cons have screwed up over the last 6 1/2 yrs ... And your endless nonsensical rants won't change that one bit.
And if you reply with your usual 'but we elected Nixon in 68', then you'll show us once again that you fail to recognize the lessons of that time ... Nixon was elected because he represented change from what was happening in Vietnam. And a change from the party that had screwed up (dems).
Now the tables have turned.
Neo-cons don't represent change ... No. They represent the ones who've screwed up ... They represent more of the same.
And the vast majority don't want more of the same. They want change.
The people will vote for change next fall ... No matter if you hold your breath and throw a tantrum, like you've become famous for doing. They will vote for change and you know it.
P.S. Who says it's gonna be Hillary? That hasn't been decided yet. But one thing for sure. The way you go on and on, attacking her so venomously and hatefully ... She apparently has you pretty scared. Ha ha ha!!!!
I have lived through 10 presidents, and nothing Hillary would to offer scares me. By the way, it has already been decieded for you, so go home and throw your own tantrum.
The question you need to ask yourself is this: If a president you regard as crooked is replaced by someone you vote for, who is also crooked, what makes the first guy so repullsive?
Answer: your own liberal bigotry.
Now to Mr. Hsu: $60,000,000! Well, he's no Ivan Boesky, but...damn!
Republicans do NOT represent change.
They represent progress.
They managed, while in control of congress, to beat a recession, in the face of an economic downturn, and a disasterous attack on New York.
The result was record employment, record tax receipts, the highest prodictivity per capita of any nation on earth, and record houshold wealth. All of this while disarming Libya, deposing Saddam, putting N. Korea to the table, and confronting Iran, and finally hunting Osami, who Bill Clinton let walk.
The 50 year old democratic philosophies have lost them two presidential elections against what could be best described as a political amateur.
Their anti- growth stance has paralyzed the Congress since they were elected into power in 2006, helping to fuel the lack of confience in our economy. They have turned on free trade, after greenlighting it in the 1990's. They greenlighted the iraq war in order to gain power and depose the republicans. In a word, the democratic party is...
Divided.
Consequently, we are headed into a recession, one that Bush manged to artfully dodge in 2001, with tax cuts that brought in record tax revenue.
Now Charlie Wrangel is talking tax cuts.
Hillary is against the war.
John Edwards is against free trade
What, exactly, DO democrats represent, besides themselves?
A Constitution for Iraq
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq . Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore, are we George.
You think the same party that's screwed things up and gotten us tied down in unecessay wars represents progress?
The word stupid falls short in describing how dumb you are SP4.
Hey, why didn't you answer my last posts to you under the article 'US wants tough immigration law'?
You know, where I pointed out that you contra-dicked yourself by saying you opposed NAFTA ('begged them not to' ... were your words), then you go on to praise the Repulicans as great for wanting it, and then you said YOU think it's great too. (too dumb to see your own contra-dick-shun ... Bwa ha ha ha!!!!!)
Scared to answer that post eh SP4?
Pathetic. Simply pathetic.
unnecessary
SP4......lies, lies, lies, lies, Hillary this, Hillary that, please come up with someone else or something else to trash, your ranting is getting real old. If you or your neo-con buddies has any credibility AT ALL some of the things you say would be pertinent.
You and your party are the biggest group of loosers in the history of this country. You are paying and you will continue to pay in the future.
SP4...no wonder you are so messed up, you are an old man, living in your past, not very healthy!
When you listed the 'records' achived by Republicans (many open to great debate) ... You completely, and conveniently failed to mention how they turned record budget surpluses ... Given to them by Clinton) into record deficits ... Increasing the national debt by 50 percent in only 6 yrs.
Yeah now that's real conservative progress eh?
SP4 even you should be able to see your party has abandoned conservative principles ... and they've abandoned you.
...since I'm not a neo-conservative, only a real conservative.
This does not mean we'll be taking showers together, so live with the disappointment.
Let me connect the dots for you...again...and again...and again...
Regardless of how you feel about free trade, the Republicans have been completely open and honest about their stance. They were plain and specific about it.
True, some of us disagreed (yes, we do that in a dynamic party not populated by a sheep-like constituency) with the lack of terms concerning reform in Mexico,the republicans were not the one's negotiating it in the end, so go see the democrats (that would be...surprise...Clinton).
The democrats, on the other hand, ramrodded it through the Congress, cornholed labor, cornholed reformism in Mexico, and now enjoy their backing. These are the sheep-like constituents I was referring to.
Now, go back, pour a drink, and when Bush is hamstrung into complying with NAFTA, go ask Hillary to, once again,bust a lamp over Bills head. In fact bust two, one for me.
By the way, Congress appropriates money, not the President, and the libnazis are in charge. Go see them about the deficit, and by all means get back with us on your progress.
We live in you present, and THAT is not what is very healthy!
Perhaps the libnazis can make Mr. Hsu the treasury secretary! He could bilk trillions from the american public and fill the coffers!
I forgot, that IS what democrats do anyway! Why hire an extra when you already have them in place?
SP4...what a enlightened response(s). Too bad you have to misrepresent the facts. But that is what 'neo-conservatives' do, along with 'conservatives'. No matter what you want to call yourselve you and your group have made a real mess of things.
SP4, your efforts to re-write recent history and say that the dems were in control of congress during the record setting deficit years of Bush (2000-2006) is shamelessly stupid ... Beyond shamelessly stupid!!!
How can you let yourself post such a glaringly stupid thing?
Holy cow SP4!!! You are that friggin desperate and dumb.
Even from you, I can't believe you'd attempt such a nonsensical post.
Here you are, saying the Republicans didn't control both houses of congress and spending bills during 2000-2006??!!???!!
Un-friggin belivable ... Even from you.
Game over.
You're just too stupid to keep this kind of banter fun anymore.
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story