xj, gonzales fires 7 or 8 for not doing there job, while clinton fired them all because some of them were doing there job too well. your gonzales reference is ignorant and lame.

Naturally cooperster, your response is classic ad hominem. The essence of the Free Beacon's question isn't about the messenger (the author and/or the book) it is about the message (the ideas and assertions in the book. those need to be addressed irrespective of the author's identify. Is the DOJ afraid to compete in the marketplace of ideas? If not, then they should address the issues and not deflect. (like that will ever happen). I would love to own the "document shredder concession" for this administration. They will be busy from now until Jan 2013.

since unions are now primarily political organizations, why should they still be allowed an exemption from anti-trust laws - and thus be allowed to collude on setting wages for an industry?

NPR shared edited video only, no audio, and certaintly no journalistic curiosity or exploration about the professor Obama was adoring and what that professor espoused.

if most people saw the debate they could decide for themselves whether it mattered. but you seem to prefer to delegate that to Soledad and her comrades. if you are such an adherent to the value of history you should welcome an examination of the entire historical record including the views of Obama's adored professor bell. as a related aside, we would also be better off if Obama would desegregate the enforcement of civil and voting rights laws in his justice dept.

marriage is not a right, it is a benefit bestowed by the state. (let's exclude the religious part of marriage for this discussion). it is within a state's rights to confer benefits upon things they want to encourage. there is an obvious biological difference between same sex couples and opposite sex couples. opposite sex couples are far more likely to produce children and raise them in a gender diverse and stable household than same sex couples. production of children and rearing of them in such a household may be of significant benefit to the state, so much so that the state decides to encourage that behavior by confering benefits to opposite sex couples who marry. that is within a states rights and not a violation of any...

correct, the economic bubble inflated under clinton's watch (encourage by his policies), just like the terrorist bubble did.

that % may or not be accurate, but those same CRA reporting banks could and did purchase sub-prime loans from the originators you describe above. it matters less who originates the loans but matters most who ultimately owns them. also the "fraudulent" assignments, failure to record, failure to transfer, and robo-signing (all ills listed above which are frankly inaccurately categorized in most cases) aren't as relevant as whether the borrower freely agreed to the terms of the contract and did not fulfill their obligations of the contract. that is, the assigning issues etc are merely administrative detail unrelated to the economics of the contract between lender and borrower. how many borrowers who were current on their payments were...

Hey Sharty, you are too clever by half. you are correct, indeed even if we eliminated the payroll tax, the funds to Social Security would not be reduced. all the funds are now being by consumed by the general budget. in fact this is what the prgressives want; they want Social Security to be a welfare program paid out of the general fund. the illusion of Social Security being a separate retirement fund can now finally be put to rest, even though the SCOTUS cleared that up a long time ago.

yes, and when she invites a guest inside her who deposits sperm she is intentionally performing a procreative act. thus she is choosing to conceive (choice #1). if conception is successful, under current law, she have a choice to terminate her (and her guest's) child's life. she will have a choice to murder (choice #2). i propose a better model for reproductive rights: no one should be compelled to procreate, and no one should be prevented from procreating. further, once one exercises their reproductive rights and conceives, they are not granted additional rights to commit murder. in short, if you don't want children, don't engage in procreative acts. and yes, rape is not an exercise in reproductive rights. indeed it is a...