Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Another nail in the coffin......

FLASH: Bill Kristol/FOXNEWS on Harriet Miers: 'I'm not convinced she's going to make it, honestly... Maybe she would do the president a favor by stepping aside'...

Stand by for Janice Rogers Brown......

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A legitimate beef once the donation is returned?

No school that relies on donations for its livelihood will be succesful long run if it accepts donations that are conditioned on specific curricular changes. Even money to start a ___ studies department/course become pretty hazy pretty fast.

No school that relies on donations for its livelihood is going to last long if it fucks its major donors in the arse. Unless they roll like dat. nttawwt. If the mission statement sells one bill of goods and they deliver another, the school ain't going to last long.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is the biggest who gives a rat's arse of this decade. The real issue is when will Rapist-in-Chief Clinton be indicted.




BREAKING...................


FORMER FBI HEAD LOUIS FREEH: CLINTON WAS PROBLEM; 'CLOSETS WERE FULL OF SKELETONS'

No shite. Bring it on already. The country needs to confront this cancerous growth on its history, excise it, and move on to recovery.

MORE TO FOLLOW.................

In the book, “My FBI,” [former FBI Director Louis Freeh] writes, “The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”

In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.”


This is huge. I wonder if Freeh's allegations will support charges of treason?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Or maybe, they should give the soldiers clear and consistent guidelines on what they can and can't do. As reported to Sen. McCain by Capt. Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne:

McCain's statement on the amendment, via Andrew Sullivan:

• Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don’t think I’m naïve about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.
  
  I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.
  
  What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives – what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence – we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength – that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea – not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion – but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
  
  I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.
  
  The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we’re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others – even our enemies.
  
  Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices – the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense – we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country’s honor to prevail; that they are always, always – through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss – they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.
  
  God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.

Well put.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Another nail in the coffin......

FLASH: Bill Kristol/FOXNEWS on Harriet Miers: 'I'm not convinced she's going to make it, honestly... Maybe she would do the president a favor by stepping aside'...

Stand by for Janice Rogers Brown......

You're relying on Drudge to give you hope? Desparate times indeed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


This is huge. I wonder if Freeh's allegations will support charges of treason?

Are you expecting him to identify skeletons about which we don't already know?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No school that relies on donations for its livelihood is going to last long if it fucks its major donors in the arse. Unless they roll like dat. nttawwt. If the mission statement sells one bill of goods and they deliver another, the school ain't going to last long.

How is he fucked in teh arse? He gave the money. He said they should change something . They said, no thanks, here's your money back.

As for his kids' enrollment, if he thinks he's not getting what he's paying for, he's free to enroll them elsewhere, and others are free not to enroll their kids.

BTW, did you send your kid to the Str8 family fat camp?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A legitimate beef once the donation is returned?

No.

No school that relies on donations for its livelihood will be succesful long run if it accepts donations that are conditioned on specific curricular changes.

Schools accept money on all sorts of conditions. The danger in this instance was that the donor did not impose a specific condition, but then acted as if he had. That was why I saw a problem.

But, when you give money (or pledge money) to a school that states that it is promoting christian values or whatever, you have some expectations that this will not change. (There are enormous issues of standing, etc. that would keep you from suing to get money back -- this is an area of law that I know very well -- but I'm not talking about the technical legal issues but rather the ethical ones.)

Even money to start a ___ studies department/course become pretty hazy pretty fast.

Believe me, I know. But that haziness is not a necessity; it's the result of choices made by the recipient of the donation.

I am going to avoid talking about this too much more -- it very quickly gets into my IRL work.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
McCain's statement on the amendment, via Andrew Sullivan:
but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.[/size]

Who?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Now that I've read the article, I think the donor had a legitimate beef given the school's mission statement.

"The mission of St. Andrew’s Episcopal School is to provide an enriched academic program within a Christian environment emphasizing the fulfillment of each student’s potential."

Gays can't be Christian? Or Christians can't be gay? It's an Episcopal school, not Valley View Christian Church's school. I can't remember where the Episcopal Church is now on homosexuality, but I think that they ordained an openly gay priest or something a couple years ago.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I meant the commentator. The big lawyer.

Nope. I do not know the former Senator.

S_A_M

P.S. Tell me again what "npi"means.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're relying on Drudge to give you hope? Desparate times indeed.

Are you questioning the veracity of the report? Otherwise, what difference does it make where its coming from? Kristol and Buchanan are influential conversatives and representative of which way the wind is blowing.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Schools accept money on all sorts of conditions. The danger in this instance was that the donor did not impose a specific condition, but then acted as if he had. That was why I saw a problem.

But, when you give money (or pledge money) to a school that states that it is promoting christian values or whatever, you have some expectations that this will not change. (There are enormous issues of standing, etc. that would keep you from suing to get money back -- this is an area of law that I know very well -- but I'm not talking about the technical legal issues but rather the ethical ones.)

It seems to me that part of the controversy, if that's what it is, stems from deep philosophical questions in the Episcopalian Church regarding what the "Christian values" are with regard to homosexual relationships.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Are you questioning the veracity of the report? Otherwise, what difference does it make where its coming from? Kristol and Buchanan are influential conversatives and representative of which way the wind is blowing.

I have no reason to question that Drudge accurately reports Kristol's opinion.

I still don't see what torpedoing Miers does for you. He didn't pick her to spite the right. He picked her because the political calculus was that anyone the right was really pushing would not be confirmable. So, instead he picked someone with a sufficiently blank slate that wasn't unconfirmable from the left's view and that he convince the right to trust him on. Having the right not trust him doesn't increase the viability of a candidate they like actually getting confirmed. So you're just delaying the problem by squawking.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Another nail in the coffin......

Stand by for Janice Rogers Brown......

The chick who thinks the Social Security Act is unconstitutional?
Not a chance.

The public may not know Lochner, but they like their Social Security.

S_A_M