Full Version: Torricelli
Oh, Good God, what a lying sack of s***!! Oh, my God, I'll make some lucid commentary when the laughter and hysterical yelps die down.
Jeez, John, could you get any more vague? Looking forward to your lucidity 
Ok, here it is:
Torricelli is currently, as I type this, stepping down from the Senate. He is creating so many fabrications and lies that I can't stop laughing. He is CRYING like a beaten child. It is pathetic because I KNOW he's guilty and he doesn't. Oh, what a f****** maroon.
Torricelli is currently, as I type this, stepping down from the Senate. He is creating so many fabrications and lies that I can't stop laughing. He is CRYING like a beaten child. It is pathetic because I KNOW he's guilty and he doesn't. Oh, what a f****** maroon.
Torricelli asked about when this country stopped accepting apologies.
Well, I'm thinking sometime between when Billy Jeff was censured and now.
Torricelli should have resigned long ago. Maybe we'll get the Senate back to the Republicans now.
Mike
Well, I'm thinking sometime between when Billy Jeff was censured and now.
Torricelli should have resigned long ago. Maybe we'll get the Senate back to the Republicans now.
Mike
in my opinion clinton-gore administration was at fault for us not being prepared to stop 9/11 from happening. toricelli also played a role in that for starting malicous rumors about the CIA and gutted them for it. im glad he is gone, i dont like him. and about replacing him, that is a joke. they keep saying "its our right", it is illegal. commiting a crime is not your right. but they should anyways, i heard a speech from the guy who they are trying to replace him with ... total idiot, it sounded like he was making it up as he was going along and doing a really bad job of it. i was laughing through the whole thing.
i was watching foxnews yesterday and i heard something that didnt sound right, i wanna know if this is true. colmes and some fox guy got into a debate about wheather the democratic party should find a replacement for torricelli, and colmes said that a republican senator ... i think they said his name was fransico, was doing the same thing. noone really said anything else about it, just wanna know ... whats the deal?
The Clinton Administration came closer to peace in Israel/Palestine than any American president. Blaming any single administration for what happened on 9-11 is ridiculous.
QUOTE(Roy @ Oct 2 2002, 07:02 PM)
The Clinton Administration came closer to peace in Israel/Palestine than any American president. Blaming any single administration for what happened on 9-11 is ridiculous.
he screwed up the CIA((well that was because toricelli lied to him)) so bad we lost all of our middle eastern contacts for years. he threatened to cut funding to the DEA and FBI if they arrested anyone for being an illegal immagrant. infact the 2 arabs that hijacked those planes in 9/11 were over here on expired visas that they got WHILE on the terrorist watch list. the INS let in felons and people on terrorist watch lists and refused to throw out illegal immigrants who commited new felonies. i think we could have been better prepared it would have not happened, everyone((even a few democrats)) was urging him to protect himself against terrorism and he completely ignored them.
just heard the news, second time that democrats have tried using the court system to break the law to their advantage. they are replacing toricelli, well are going to try. its going to goto the supreme court and they wont allow it
Clinton tried kill Bin Laden when we fired missles into that dust bowl and came under fire from the world when the country claimed it was a medical research facility. A medical research facility in a land that can't make glass, that's great.
Under the Clinton administration 60 Pakistani commandos trained by USSF teams were going to go into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden. After the "blooless coup" their new president wouldn't allow this action to take place.
Let's also blame Regan and big Bush for helping establish the Taliban and arm Bin Laden's people. You cannot blame ANY ONE administartion for
9-11. There is a long history here. Politicizing 9-11 is lower than targeting civillians with commercial aircraft.
Under the Clinton administration 60 Pakistani commandos trained by USSF teams were going to go into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden. After the "blooless coup" their new president wouldn't allow this action to take place.
Let's also blame Regan and big Bush for helping establish the Taliban and arm Bin Laden's people. You cannot blame ANY ONE administartion for
9-11. There is a long history here. Politicizing 9-11 is lower than targeting civillians with commercial aircraft.
Back to the topic at hand, my boss posed an interesting question and he said for me to get all of your opinions on this.
Depending on which poll you read, Toricelli was anywhere from 13 to 20 points behind. Had he been ahead, do you think he would have ever dropped out? Which is worse a quitter or a loser?
Depending on which poll you read, Toricelli was anywhere from 13 to 20 points behind. Had he been ahead, do you think he would have ever dropped out? Which is worse a quitter or a loser?
Clinton was a lot of talk, not just about terrorism, about everything. That is why he got elected, good speaker. But that was all he was, he didnt do anything special. Can you name something?
Right on, Jaime. The only reason he dropped out is so they can put someone else in, and make the rules up(again) as they go along.
Right on, Jaime. The only reason he dropped out is so they can put someone else in, and make the rules up(again) as they go along.
I have been told the laws of why he "can't" be replaced and I must say they're, plainly put, dumb. I know that the militaries ballots have already been sent out with Toricelli's name on it and this may cause some problems with those votes but both parties should be represented on a ballot and there's no way you can make this person see otherwise. The obvious responses to this are the republicans ( the ones whom win if they can't replace him) want to stick by the law. The democrats (the losers) want it to be a fair fight I don't call myself a democrat or a republican and that's how I see it.
I sort of see it as the "I know there are laws, but they shouldn't apply to me" syndrome that is epidemic in this country. Sure, Limpubus, it may be "unfair" that the democrats won't have their (newly) chosen candidate on the ballot, but the law was written for a purpose. At this particular point in time, it is too late to change the law.
I think if the democrats have a problem with the law and should work to have it rewritten for next election. It's too late this round.
I think if the democrats have a problem with the law and should work to have it rewritten for next election. It's too late this round.
They do it for a reason, so democrats dont do what they are doing now. Pulling someone out at the last minute and replace him because he isnt doing good, if they let Toricelli do this now then everyone will do it. It would cause alot of problems, thus it is not 'dumb'.
Not to mention the fact that, if military voters don't get the same candidates as civillian voters, it will never be fair.
51 days. That's the law in New Jersey. Everyone involved knew that.
With the Senate 50-49-1, everyone is going to pull out all the punches. Daschle made the call, the liberal NJ Supreme Court reinforced it. Now it's up to the real Supremes to decide.
And, Limpubus, I appreciate you using me as a source.
Mike
51 days. That's the law in New Jersey. Everyone involved knew that.
With the Senate 50-49-1, everyone is going to pull out all the punches. Daschle made the call, the liberal NJ Supreme Court reinforced it. Now it's up to the real Supremes to decide.
And, Limpubus, I appreciate you using me as a source.
Mike
I've already named 2 good things Clinton did for me personally.
Gave me the biggest raise the military had seen in 10 or 15 years and increased my GI bill from $14,400 to $19,900. He also gave my little cousin's school library (& many others) a lot of money for books.
Again, budget surplus.
You can argue ANY past president's accomplishments and failures. You can pick any republican, democrat, or federalist and do the same. It's just a matter of "how bad was it".
Bush destroyed my state (as the Governor") environmentally speaking but he helped a lot of people get jobs. Maybe the environment is more important but I was more concerned with jobs at the time & he did what I needed.
I thought Clinton did fine. Just as Big Bush and Regan. But I really hate the fact that that rawhide Reagan bastard won't let me write off my vehicle interest on my taxes anymore.
Gave me the biggest raise the military had seen in 10 or 15 years and increased my GI bill from $14,400 to $19,900. He also gave my little cousin's school library (& many others) a lot of money for books.
Again, budget surplus.
You can argue ANY past president's accomplishments and failures. You can pick any republican, democrat, or federalist and do the same. It's just a matter of "how bad was it".
Bush destroyed my state (as the Governor") environmentally speaking but he helped a lot of people get jobs. Maybe the environment is more important but I was more concerned with jobs at the time & he did what I needed.
I thought Clinton did fine. Just as Big Bush and Regan. But I really hate the fact that that rawhide Reagan bastard won't let me write off my vehicle interest on my taxes anymore.
Well, it looks like this fight is over: High Court Won't Take N.J. Sen. Case
So now what? Does this mean in any election, if the candidate appears to be losing, that the party can replace them REGARDLESS of the law? What the heck is the point of having laws if no one follows them?
So now what? Does this mean in any election, if the candidate appears to be losing, that the party can replace them REGARDLESS of the law? What the heck is the point of having laws if no one follows them?
I'm sorry, I haven't paid enough attention to this situation would you mind giving me the cliff notes?
It seems as though our court system is becoming increaslingly involved in this sort of thing.
It seems as though our court system is becoming increaslingly involved in this sort of thing.
I found the following synopsis at the Daily Trojan (USC school paper) from Tuesday, October, 1, 2002.
I hope that helps catch you up.
Jaime
QUOTE
Senator steps down: Democratic Sen. Robert Toricelli suddenly abandoned his bid for re-election Monday after an admonishment from a Senate committee during possible ethical misconduct over the summer, The Associated Press reported. Toricelli was admonished after allegations that he had accepted gifts from businessman David Chang, a campaign contributor. Toricelli, who was seeking a second term, said he removed himself from the election to avoid tarnishing the image of the Democratic party, whose control of the Senate is at stake in the Nov. 5 general election. Although state Democratic party officials said they would decide on a replacement in the election within 48 hours, Republican leaders are arguing that state law bars a replacement from stepping up so close to the election, which is only five weeks away. Possible replacements include current House members Bob Menendez, Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews and former Sens. Frank Laughtenberg and Bill Bradley.
I hope that helps catch you up.
Jaime
That was a mistake, now democrats are going to pull that stunt as much as courts allow them.
And Roy, I could go on about Clinton all day long. Its late and I dont feel like it, maybe some other day. heh
And Roy, I could go on about Clinton all day long. Its late and I dont feel like it, maybe some other day. heh
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.