For The Record - Tonight 8pm est
CLOSE X

User Profile: louie louie

louie louie

Member Since: November 13, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] September 13, 2014 at 2:27am

    Even if Michael Brown had his hands in the air, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t doing it to taunt the officer before bum-rushing him. But if there is no video of the actual shooting, this video could be damaging in court. The thing no one has explained is why the officer only shot Michael Brown. If he had no reason to shoot Michael other than racism, why didn’t he shoot Michael’s friend, too? Wasn’t he also black? If you’re willing to murder an innocent man just because he’s black, why would you hesitate to get rid of the main witness? Whatever it was, Michael must have done something that his friend didn’t do to get shot.

  • September 10, 2014 at 8:40pm

    From now on, what you see when staring at a random blood stain should be called the Rohatsch’s test in his honor.

  • [15] September 10, 2014 at 5:02pm

    It’s not the best way to get Tyson to calm down by saying, “Tell me about your one-man show. I’m all ears.”

  • [1] August 26, 2014 at 1:02am

    “If this backup system is working, then Lois Lerner’s emails are there,” he said.

    Until this last sentence, I thought there was something new being reported. I thought they had found the backup tapes. But saying “if this backup system is working” means this is just speculation. The IRS admitted long ago that Lerner’s emails were backed up, but the tapes were supposedly “recycled” after only 6 months. Did Tom Fitton forget this little detail? It’s not a question of whether the emails were backed up. It’s a question of whether the backup tapes still exist. If the IRS lawyers only admitted that the emails were backed up, we already knew this. But if they admitted that the IRS lied to Congress and that the backup tapes still exist, then we have something. But the IRS still has to produce them, or we have nothing.

  • [3] August 15, 2014 at 12:29am

    What incentive is there for government employees to be caring and competent about their work as long as there are no consequences for being lazy and sloppy?

  • August 12, 2014 at 6:56pm

    He appointed more than a dozen lobbyists after saying he wouldn’t. But he did issue a waiver for them each time. That’s a Democratic trick. Issue a rule or law to make you appear ethical, then quietly waive the rule every time you want to be unethical. When the House passed Pelosi’s “Pay As You Go” rule years ago, they announce with great fanfare that the government was now going to live within its means. However, they immediately waived the rule for the next bill (and just about every bill afterward). It was all for show, just as the lobbyist rules are now.

  • August 12, 2014 at 6:46pm

    How can the OMB reverse an executive order signed by the President? Did Obama secretly sign an authorization for the OMB to do this but is letting them take the heat for it? If not, the OMB is acting illegally. The executive order explicitly orders “the heads of executive departments and agencies not to make any new appointments or reappointments of federally registered lobbyists to advisory committees and other boards and commissions.” It doesn’t allow for an exception, so how can the OMB invent one without the President amending the order or issuing a new one?

  • August 1, 2014 at 5:11pm

    The only thing Gaza would do with Iron Dome technology would look for ways to fool it so they could kill Israeli civilians. They have no interest in protecting their own citizens because then they wouldn’t get sympathy and financial support from the outside world. If they had any interest in protecting their own civilians, they would have built bomb shelters instead of building tunnels into Israel.

  • July 31, 2014 at 2:00pm

    “The controversy is centered on an investigation of the CIA’s interrogation and detention practices after the 9/11 attacks.”

    In other words, Obama’s CIA illegally searching Senate computers earlier this year is Bush’s fault.

  • [6] July 31, 2014 at 1:52pm

    Transparency for this administration has always been about blaming Bush and nothing else.

  • [2] July 29, 2014 at 1:57pm

    Does this new bill solve any of the real problems at the VA? One whistle blower doctor revealed that he could not schedule an operating room after 2:30 in the afternoon because everyone wanted to leave work early every day. Another whistle blower revealed that psychiatric doctors refused to see patients after 2 PM. Apparently, they felt they had the right to go golfing on the taxpayer’s dime like their boss. If the new bill doesn’t require healthcare workers to work full time for their pay and bonuses, things are not going to change. Hiring more doctors and workers will only allow them to knock off even earlier in the day while costing us a lot more. I just don’t have confidence that throwing all this new money at the problem is going to solve anything. Government has no incentive to be efficient, especially when the union is applying constant pressure to be less efficient.

  • [2] July 29, 2014 at 1:42pm

    Surprise, surprise, the left hand has restored what the right hand took away. You would think a bill that passed 426-0 would stay on the books for more than a month. But it’s the people’s money they’re playing with, not their own, so no big deal. It seems that everything they do is for appearance only so they can claim they did something when they actually didn’t. They know 90 percent of their voters won’t bother to fact check them. That’s the kind of government we will continue to get until people wake up.

  • [38] July 28, 2014 at 2:09pm

    When are negative things about a person included in an obituary? It usually written by family and/or friends. Why would they do that to a friend who just died?

    Responses (9) +
  • July 28, 2014 at 2:01pm

    “…the rule should not be seen as economically significant, since it believes it would cost less than $100 million.”
    —–
    Only Congress can authorize spending of tax money. If Obama wants to do it without congressional approval, he has to pay for it himself. Then we will see if he still thinks $100 milllion is not “economically significant.”

  • [2] July 24, 2014 at 3:31pm

    “[Eschliman] expressed an opinion in his personal blog that in no way reflects the opinion of the Newton Daily News or Shaw Media,” Rung wrote.”

    Would Rung have fired Eschliman if he had expressed the opposite opinion, one that was in favor of the gay agenda in his personal blog? I think not. Free speech has become a one-way street, which is exactly the way progressives planned it.

    Responses (1) +
  • July 22, 2014 at 10:20pm

    “Priefer has vehemently denied Kluwe’s claims.”
    _____

    So why did they suspend him for 3 games? Did they find another witness? Or did they just take Kluwe’s word for it even though the investigation found his other claims to be either exaggerations or outright lies? Kluwe is clearly disgruntled and untrustworthy. This doesn’t sound like innocent until proven guilty to me.

  • [8] July 21, 2014 at 12:19pm

    So people should just walk away and continue to allow federally funded facilities to violate the law? We should do nothing to stop them from discriminating against the religious right while using our tax money to do it? If that’s your advice, maybe you should just zip it. Obviously you don’t yet understand that evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

  • [2] July 21, 2014 at 12:49am

    Actually, it’s even worse, they got bonuses for not doing their jobs.

  • July 19, 2014 at 8:32pm

    If this story is “just impossible to comment on,” why did you waste our time with your meaningless comment?

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] July 19, 2014 at 8:26pm

    They could have gotten away unharmed but, instead, called the police to report having their feelings hurt by warning shots interrupting them in the middle of their assault. What a couple of maroons!

123 To page: Go