Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Hmm... I wonder why Bush won't let his aides go under oath.
Author Message
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #21
 
GGniner Wrote:
Machiavelli Wrote:The truth............


Rove is a dangerous dangerous man. His downfall could be beneficial to my beliefs on many fronts. It's how the game is played.


Now, I do have a problem with our judicial system being politicized. Attention or neglect from a prosecutor should have nothing to do with political affiliation.


There are voting districts in St. Louis, Milawauke, New Mexico to name a few were more voters voted than are Registered to Vote in those districts. If these attorneys were not pursuing Voter Fraud they should be fired!

100% turnout is highly unlikely as it is, but 110% is impossible legally.

A prosecutor, if he is behaving according to professional standards, has to believe he has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to bring a case to court.

Based on the FBI's investigations, which HE is privy too and YOU are not, he concluded that he only had evidence in one such case.

Wilson and Domenici called him before the election to see if he would be pursuing indictments prior to the election in that case. That is HIGHLY improper.

Lets be clear about something. Every one of these prosecutors is a Republican.

What Republicans in the White House, and apparently a few New Mexico members of congress, and now Limbaugh dittoheads, had a problem with was that they weren't being partisan enough.
03-21-2007 01:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #22
 
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
Machiavelli Wrote:Yes, there was a witch hunt. Yes, this witch hunt was purely political. When attorneys investigated Republican's they weren't loyal Bushies. When an attorney couldn't bring a Democrat to trial for lack of evidence, he wasn't a loyal Bushie. The Justice Dpartment opened over 350 investigations against Democrats. Only 11 were opened on Republican's. Yes a witch hunt did happen and our country will get to the bottom of it. Even though the 28 percenters don't agree, our Justice Dept. should be above politics. There is a reason justice should be blind and it SHOULD be above politics.

Despite what you've read on your left wing sites Dogger it's totally within the presidents right to hire and fire for any reason these attorneys. They are political appointees and serve at his pleasure.

That is true.

However, what is really unusual about this case though is that the White House and the AG's office went out of their way to claim they were fired for poor performance, and there is no evidence of that.

What there is evidence of, is that their prosecutions did not favor Republicans, particularly Lam and Iglesias.

They are political appointees, but they don't work for Bush, they work for the American people. They are supposed to be independent from politics.

If they were fired for political reasons, and then the White House told the world that they were not performing their jobs well --- that's something that the American people have a right to know about.

Why is transparency such a bad thing here? Congress has oversight responsibilities to uphold... this is how accountability works in our government.
03-21-2007 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #23
 
OUGwave Wrote:There was no "underlying crime" in the Lewinsky case either.

What's the word I'm looking for..oh yeah STRAW MAN!! STRAW MAN!! 03-weeping

Clinton was testifying as part of the Paula Jones lawsuit. There is no lawsuit in this, everything done was perfectly legal and therefore the situations are not the same.

Quote:What the congress is attempting to get to the bottom of, is whether US Attorneys were fired because they were not responding to Republican political pressure (in the case of Iglesias), or because they were prosecuting prominent Republicans (Lam). The Justice Department and the White House asserted they were being fired for performance reasons, but no evidence has been produced to support that. So we do need to get to the bottom of what happened because the public has a right to know, not because anyone is going to go to jail. There doesn't have to be a crime -- the American people have a right to transparency on matters like this, and congress has an oversight responsibility.

Your pie in the sky view of our political system aside, I have no problem with them seeking answers. However the president offered them a compromise to getting answers, they've turned it down.

While you may see it as a cop out, the presidents ability to get candid advice is very important. And he cannot get it if a precident is set that those advisors can be called to testify at the whim on congress. I hear whining about seperation of powers all the time around here, yet none of the ones that do are saying a word about this.

They want this in public, they want to make a spectacle of it. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
03-21-2007 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
niuhuskie84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,930
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
 
GGniner Wrote:and the lib-media polls method is to poll more dems than republicans. usually 40-28 range difference, not to mention to ask misleading questions.

So did you dispute the numbers when Bush had a record approval rating?
03-21-2007 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #25
 
Ninerfan1 Wrote:What's the word I'm looking for..oh yeah STRAW MAN!! STRAW MAN!! 03-weeping

Clinton was testifying as part of the Paula Jones lawsuit. There is no lawsuit in this, everything done was perfectly legal and therefore the situations are not the same.

Well, you need to look up the definition of the term straw man. A straw man argument is when you invent a position that is easy to refute, and then attribute it to your opponent.

What I provided was an empirical counter-example: If the only benchmark of whether something should be investigated is whether there was an "underlying crime", then Clinton would never have been investigated.

Clinton was testifying in the Paula Jones lawsuit, yes. But what did Monica Lewinsky have to do with that? It was ruled immaterial to the case. What was the underlying crime in the Lewinsky case... thats all I want to know.

Quote:Your pie in the sky view of our political system aside, I have no problem with them seeking answers. However the president offered them a compromise to getting answers, they've turned it down.

While you may see it as a cop out, the presidents ability to get candid advice is very important. And he cannot get it if a precident is set that those advisors can be called to testify at the whim on congress. I hear whining about seperation of powers all the time around here, yet none of the ones that do are saying a word about this.

They want this in public, they want to make a spectacle of it. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

The president did not offer them a compromise. You cannot investigate something behind closed doors with no transcript and without an oath. The issue is that the PUBLIC has a right to know why these attorneys were fired. They would never be able to find out if there was no transcript, let alone an oath.

Executive privilege will never hold up here. There are no national security issues at stake here. Rove can invoke executive privilege if the questions stray in anyway beyond the US Attorney firings. Fine.

By the way, several Clinton administration advisers, including Stephanopolous, testified under oath.
03-21-2007 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #26
 
OUGwave Wrote:Well, you need to look up the definition of the term straw man. A straw man argument is when you invent a position that is easy to refute, and then attribute it to your opponent.

What I provided was an empirical counter-example: If the only benchmark of whether something should be investigated is whether there was an "underlying crime", then Clinton would never have been investigated.

Clinton was testifying in the Paula Jones lawsuit, yes. But what did Monica Lewinsky have to do with that? It was ruled immaterial to the case. What was the underlying crime in the Lewinsky case... thats all I want to know.

Far be it for me to disagree with the smartest kid in the class but that is exactly what you did. You attributed a motive to my argument. The only reason to bring up Clinton to me is based on your desire to make my viewpoint political. That if this were a democrat I'd be all for what they're doing.

Your invention - my view on Rove testifying is political, thus you bring up Clinton to refute a position that I don't hold. There is no other reason to bring him up, despite your claim to the contrary.

But that's beside the point.

Quote:The president did not offer them a compromise. You cannot investigate something behind closed doors with no transcript and without an oath.

Sure you can. It happens all the time, especially when there's no crime.

Quote:The issue is that the PUBLIC has a right to know why these attorneys were fired. They would never be able to find out if there was no transcript, let alone an oath.

Why doesn't matter. The president can hire or fire for whatever reason he chooses. End of discussion.
03-21-2007 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #27
 
there was an "underlying crime" with Clinton, it was called Whitewater and there are many people sitting in Jail because of this "underlying crime"
03-21-2007 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #28
 
GGniner Wrote:there was an "underlying crime" with Clinton, it was called Whitewater and there are many people sitting in Jail because of this "underlying crime"

Clinton was impeached because of whitewater? I'm sorry, I think you need to go take your meds and go lay down for awhile.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about getting head under oath.
03-21-2007 02:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #29
 
OUGwave Wrote:
GGniner Wrote:there was an "underlying crime" with Clinton, it was called Whitewater and there are many people sitting in Jail because of this "underlying crime"

Clinton was impeached because of whitewater? I'm sorry, I think you need to go take your meds and go lay down for awhile.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about getting head under oath.

Whitewater is what Ken Starr was initially investigating Clinton for and he got several convictions from it. Lewinsky is just something that came up later on and they caught him lying about it. Starr produced 15 Convictions in Whitewater, all Clinton Friends and political allies, the biggest being Hubbel. There was an underlying crime which is counter to what you said.

you said:


Quote:What I provided was an empirical counter-example: If the only benchmark of whether something should be investigated is whether there was an "underlying crime", then Clinton would never have been investigated.

01-wingedeagle
and I provided emperical evidence you are clueless.
03-21-2007 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #30
 
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Far be it for me to disagree with the smartest kid in the class but that is exactly what you did.

What is up with this "smartest kid in the class" crap? I mean, the conservatives on this forum keep trying to use this against me as some kind of ad-hom attack, which I don't really get a number of levels. Have I ever said that I'm smarter than someone else? I've never said anything that even remotely approaches that (Ok, maybe endzone -- but come on).

I simply argue for my positions the same as anyone else does. If in doing this, I comes off as intelligent or well-informed, I take that as praise and can't really understand it as an ad-hom.

Honestly, it kind of makes you look insecure.

Quote:Why doesn't matter. The president can hire or fire for whatever reason he chooses. End of discussion.

He has a juridical "right" to fire anyone he wants.

If he fires them because they were "disloyal" to his political party and his white house, the American people have a "right" to know. End of discussion.
03-21-2007 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #31
 
GGniner Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:
GGniner Wrote:there was an "underlying crime" with Clinton, it was called Whitewater and there are many people sitting in Jail because of this "underlying crime"

Clinton was impeached because of whitewater? I'm sorry, I think you need to go take your meds and go lay down for awhile.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about getting head under oath.

Whitewater is what Ken Starr was initially investigating Clinton for and he got several convictions from it. Lewinsky is just something that came up later on and they caught him lying about it. There was an underlying crime which is counter to what you said.

you said:


Quote:What I provided was an empirical counter-example: If the only benchmark of whether something should be investigated is whether there was an "underlying crime", then Clinton would never have been investigated.

01-wingedeagle
and I provided emperical evidence you are clueless.

The testimony in which Clinton lied was in a civil case about sexual harassment.

Please draw a straight line between that case and the Whitewater investigation.

Take your time, I'll be waiting.
03-21-2007 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #32
 
OUGwave Wrote:What is up with this "smartest kid in the class" crap? I mean, the conservatives on this forum keep trying to use this against me as some kind of ad-hom attack, which I don't really get a number of levels.

Wow, ad hominem attack. Another deductive logic 101 term for us all to enjoy. Well at least it's not straw man.

Quote:I simply argue for my positions the same as anyone else does. If in doing this, I comes off as intelligent or well-informed, I take that as praise and can't really understand it as an ad-hom.

I'd actually use a different set of terms as opposed to intelligent or well-informed. Not to say you aren't very smart, clearly you are. You're just one of the few on here that like to show it off as much as possible.

Quote:Honestly, it kind of makes you look insecure.

LOL!! Classic.

Quote:He has a juridical "right" to fire anyone he wants.

If he fires them because they were "disloyal" to his political party and his white house, the American people have a "right" to know. End of discussion.

Sorry, I don't think so. Your "right" to know is based on political fodder. Nothing more. Who cares if he fired them for purely political reasons? He can do that if he wants. If you're one of the few in this country that doesn't believe politics drive the majority of decisions our leaders make my apologies.
03-21-2007 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #33
 
Indpendent Counsel powers were given to Ken Starr in 1994 because of Whitewater, later he investigated other scandals such as Travelgate and the Vince Foster suicide. There were "underlying crimes" he was invetigating. When Tripp found out Lewinsky denied the affair she took her famous tapes to Ken Starr, the only reason she went to him is because he was already investigation crimes and had been given the power to do so.

Quote:If the only benchmark of whether something should be investigated is whether there was an "underlying crime", then Clinton would never have been investigated.
03-21-2007 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #34
 
GGniner Wrote:Indpendent Counsel powers were given to Ken Starr in 1994 because of Whitewater, later he investigated other scandals such as Travelgate and the Vince Foster suicide. There were "underlying crimes" he was invetigating. When Tripp found out Lewinsky denied the affair she took her famous tapes to Ken Starr, the only reason she went to him is because he was already investigation crimes.

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask for a history of how the Lewinsky story emerged... I know that stuff.

What is the straight line connecting the Lewinsky affair to the "crime" of whitewater that Ken Starr was investigating?

If Lewinsky had nothing to do with Whitewater, then what "underlying crime" was that perjury related to?

The right has come to defend Scooter Libby because he was not lying about a crime (the position being that the leaking of plame's name was not a crime). Fine. So what was the underlying crime of the Lewinsky perjury affair for which Clinton was impeached? Note -- he never lied to Ken Starr in the Whitewater investigation.
03-21-2007 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #35
 
OUGwave Wrote:What is the straight line connecting the Lewinsky affair to the "crime" of whitewater that Ken Starr was investigating?

Starr wasn't just investigating White Water. Travelgate was also investigated. Lewinsky provided an affadavit in the Paula Jones suit which was confirmed later she lied in. Linda Tripp recorded the conversations where Monica talked about the affair, the one she lied about in her affadavit, and delivered them to Starr. His role was then expanded to determine if 1) The president had asked Lewinsky to lie, and 2) if he'd lied in his own deposition in the case. Janet Reno is who authorized Starr to add that to his investigation as opposed to establishing a new independent council to investigate them.

There was an underlying crime being investigated at the time, therefore investigating Clinton as part of that was appropriate.
03-21-2007 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #36
 
Because the Lewinsky affair was material to the Jones case! they lied in order to deny Paula Jones her due process rights guaranteed in the document President Clinton took an oath to defend and uphold. He had Lewinsky go and lie to the jury because of that, if it was not material she would not have lied. Its also beleived she was paid off to do so with a job. Clinton then lied himself, it was perjury and obstruction of justice. Had they not done that he would've likely lost the JOnes case, something he later settled out of court for with money.

if your still not following, Clinton lied because he didn't want to lose the civil suit. Libby had no reason to lie. Its also much more beleivable that Libby simply forgot how conversations unfolded exactly and highly unlikely that both clinton and lewinsky simply forgot they had an affair.

it also fell under the powers of the special counsel who was investigation other "underlying crimes" and had this all brought to him.

and you said:
Quote:If the only benchmark of whether something should be investigated is whether there was an "underlying crime", then Clinton would never have been investigated
03-21-2007 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #37
 
GGniner Wrote:Because the Lewinsky affair was material to the Jones case! they lied in order to deny Paula Jones her due process rights guaranteed in the document President Clinton took an oath to defend and uphold. He had Lewinsky go and lie to the jury because of that, if it was not material she would not have lied. Its also beleived she was paid off to do so with a job. Clinton then lied himself, it was perjury and obstruction of justice. Had they not done that he would've likely lost the JOnes case, something he later settled out of court for with money.

if your still not following, Clinton lied because he didn't want to lose the civil suit. Libby had no reason to lie. Its also much more beleivable that Libby simply forgot how conversations unfolded exactly and highly unlikely that both clinton and lewinsky simply forgot they had an affair.

You are, once again, not entitled to your own facts.

The judge in the case ruled that the Lewinsky testimony was immaterial to the Jones case.

You say the reason Clinton lied was so that he could win the civil suit.

Clinton lied for the same reason any public married man would lie about getting head from a woman who is not his wife. He didn't want his wife and other people to know what he did.

Thats not right -- but it is what it is -- and it should never have been pursued by Ken Starr.
03-21-2007 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #38
 
OUGwave Wrote:You are, once again, not entitled to your own facts.

Nor are you.

From the text of the Judge's ruling.

Quote: In so ruling, and contrary to numerous assertions, this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff's case. Indeed, the Court specifically acknowledged that such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff's case and, as she argued, "might possibly have helped her establish, among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the part of the President." 993 F.Supp. at 1222 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 406). At the time, however, the Court anticipated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky would both deny a sexual relationship and that plaintiff would attempt to rebut their denials with extrinsic evidence that could be inadmissable under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). To stay discovery so that plaintiff could explore such evidence would have required extensive additional delay. In that regard, this Court made the decision to disallow discovery as to Ms. Lewinsky and to exclude evidence concerning her from trial, not because the Court considered such evidence to be irrelevant or immaterial, but because its admission would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and cause undue expense and delay, the substantial interests of the Presidency militated against any undue delay that would be occasioned by allowing plaintiff to pursue the Lewinsky matter, and the government's criminal proceedings (to which this Court generally must yield in civil matters) could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinsky matter by the parties in this civil case. Id. at 1219-20. The Court noted that evidence of the Lewinsky matter, even assuming it to be very favorable to plaintiff, was "not essential to the core issues in this case of whether plaintiff herself was the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress." Id. at 1222 (emphasis in original).
03-21-2007 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #39
 
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:You are, once again, not entitled to your own facts.

Nor are you.

From the text of the Judge's ruling.

Quote: In so ruling, and contrary to numerous assertions, this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff's case. Indeed, the Court specifically acknowledged that such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff's case and, as she argued, "might possibly have helped her establish, among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the part of the President." 993 F.Supp. at 1222 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 406). At the time, however, the Court anticipated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky would both deny a sexual relationship and that plaintiff would attempt to rebut their denials with extrinsic evidence that could be inadmissable under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). To stay discovery so that plaintiff could explore such evidence would have required extensive additional delay. In that regard, this Court made the decision to disallow discovery as to Ms. Lewinsky and to exclude evidence concerning her from trial, not because the Court considered such evidence to be irrelevant or immaterial, but because its admission would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and cause undue expense and delay, the substantial interests of the Presidency militated against any undue delay that would be occasioned by allowing plaintiff to pursue the Lewinsky matter, and the government's criminal proceedings (to which this Court generally must yield in civil matters) could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinsky matter by the parties in this civil case. Id. at 1219-20. The Court noted that evidence of the Lewinsky matter, even assuming it to be very favorable to plaintiff, was "not essential to the core issues in this case of whether plaintiff herself was the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress." Id. at 1222 (emphasis in original).

Quote: In so ruling, and contrary to numerous assertions, this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff's case. Indeed, the Court specifically acknowledged that such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff's case and, as she argued, "might possibly have helped her establish, among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the part of the President." 993 F.Supp. at 1222 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 406). At the time, however, the Court anticipated that the President and Ms. Lewinsky would both deny a sexual relationship and that plaintiff would attempt to rebut their denials with extrinsic evidence that could be inadmissable under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). To stay discovery so that plaintiff could explore such evidence would have required extensive additional delay. In that regard, this Court made the decision to disallow discovery as to Ms. Lewinsky and to exclude evidence concerning her from trial, not because the Court considered such evidence to be irrelevant or immaterial, but because its admission would frustrate the timely resolution of this case and cause undue expense and delay, the substantial interests of the Presidency militated against any undue delay that would be occasioned by allowing plaintiff to pursue the Lewinsky matter, and the government's criminal proceedings (to which this Court generally must yield in civil matters) could be impaired and prejudiced were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinsky matter by the parties in this civil case. Id. at 1219-20. The Court noted that evidence of the Lewinsky matter, even assuming it to be very favorable to plaintiff, was "not essential to the core issues in this case of whether plaintiff herself was the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress." Id. at 1222 (emphasis in original).

Much like the Libby case, no?
03-21-2007 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #40
 
JUST FOR THE RECORD.....................


Clinton had the three definitions of sexual contact given to him. His attorney's whittled the definition of sex down to sexual intercourse because the other two criteria were too vague. So by the letter of the LAW Clinton never perjured himself. I am aware he came out and said he misled the nation on Lewinsky. Wasn't totally truthful. He shouldn't of had. He never lied to the rule of law.
03-21-2007 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.