20

11/18/2007 7:52:44 PM

has anyone noticed that the war/anti-war choice has changed from

leave Iraq <-> stay the course in Iraq

to

stay the course in Iraq <-> Stay in Iraq and invade Iran

Well, at least for the major candidates.

11/19/2007 12:51:49 AM

OMG the candidates are flip-flopping

Everything out of the front candidates mouth is strategically plotted verbal diarrhea in order draw the most % of their target voters. I do not buy half the shit spoken and will only judge candidates on the route i think they will take and what they actually do in office. George W said a lot of shit during his campaign in 2000 then did the exact opposite or failed to follow through on a lot of topics.

Realistically I do not think Hillary is irresponsible enough to adopt the so called "baby bond" for every born child getting $5000 at birth. This I think is just lip service to appeal to the working class and minority groups who are all about free handouts. Billy Bob getting $5000 at birth means that Mary Beth can upgrade to that double wide instead of saving that money to send Billy Bob to community college at 18.

11/19/2007 9:32:48 AM

Quote :

"appeal to the working class and minority groups who are all about free handouts. Billy Bob getting $5000 at birth means that Mary Beth can upgrade to that double wide instead of saving that money to send Billy Bob to community college at 18."

Wow you're not an elitist asshole at all.


And forgive politicians for appealing to the majority of people who are poor instead of the top 10% of income getters. Did you learn nothing from the french revolution? Keep ignoring the lower class and pushing a completely free market, nothing bad will happen, I promise.

11/19/2007 9:37:37 AM

Quote :

"Keep ignoring the lower class and pushing a completely free market, "

Free Market capitalism has done more to raise the lower classes, than any of the socialist regimes.

11/19/2007 10:03:08 AM

Quote :

"Free Market capitalism has done more to raise the lower classes, than any of the socialist regimes."

Don't even pretend like America has a free market or has ever had a free market.

And don't pretend like communists = socialists.

Or you could continue living in a world of black and white and not improve anything.

11/19/2007 10:05:45 AM

Quote :

"has anyone noticed that the war/anti-war choice has changed from leave Iraq <-> stay the course in Iraq to stay the course in Iraq <-> Stay in Iraq and invade Iran Well, at least for the major candidates."

No, I hadn't noticed that. Bastard.

11/19/2007 11:22:27 AM

11/19/2007 1:20:40 PM

Quote :

"George W said a lot of shit during his campaign in 2000 then did the exact opposite"

True dat. And if there is one thing we can know for sure for this election, it is that Hillary will also do anything but what she says. True for most of the others too. Hillary is status quo though. And status quo is being lied to by politicians who speak in terms of demographics of who's listening and act in terms of where their money comes from.

11/19/2007 1:31:01 PM

Quote :

"And forgive politicians for appealing to the majority of people who are poor instead of the top 10% of income getters. Did you learn nothing from the french revolution? Keep ignoring the lower class and pushing a completely free market, nothing bad will happen, I promise."

lol

11/19/2007 3:19:56 PM

I've heard multiple poor people in Raleigh talk of this revolution.

I could really see some of them dragging politicians out into the street and murdering them in a bloody revolution. Those are some crazy motherfuckers.

11/19/2007 5:17:20 PM

Oh yeah, don't get so carried away with the war in Iraq that you forget about the war that we're fighting at home against our own people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7102054.stm

11/19/2007 6:14:11 PM

^Gee I wonder why our prison systems are so fucked up? Maybe it has something to do with the ridiculous social welfare system in this country that keeps people impoverished and punishes them for trying to become self-sufficient? Or maybe the complete lack of help for repopulating inmates once they leave prison? Or maybe the stigma our federal and state governments put on ex-cons, making it all but impossible for them to become equal standing members of society again?

The prison system, much like most of our other social systems, shows how complete the failure really is, and how our tax money is being thrown down the toilet.

11/20/2007 1:43:49 AM

^ You would have a hard time appealing to the public, particularly the right, on the basis that we're treating criminals and excriminals too harshly.

11/20/2007 2:32:49 AM

^
you'd do it by showing that they're not really "criminals", but "unjustly incriminated citizens"

you know, by using whatever logic is being used to forgive EX-CONVICT rush limbaugh for his drug CRIME

Quote :

"excriminals"

nearly every adult is an "excriminal", in some way

even convicted felons might be 100% non-violent, non-larcenous, and completely innocent of harming anything

hell, I know some



our bullshit war on drugs, and the larger war on morality in general

has greatly diluted the terms "ex-con" and "felon"

and now with that kid in florida, even the term "sexual offender" is beginning to mean nothing



our system is fucked

11/20/2007 8:13:41 AM

Quote :

"Wow you're not an elitist asshole at all."

:-p lolzor

Quote :

" And forgive politicians for appealing to the majority of people who are poor instead of the top 10% of income getters. Did you learn nothing from the french revolution? Keep ignoring the lower class and pushing a completely free market, nothing bad will happen, I promise."

I think you are just putting words in my mouth now. Maybe you should read around my other posts concerning social welfare and while I'm not heartfelt liberal; I am not an uncle scrooge like many right-wingers such as TreeTwista10.

BTW the lower classes would NEVER commit to something like the french revolution. This would take out of their TV time watching American Idol, BigBrother 15, and Friends reruns.

Quote :

"Free Market capitalism has done more to raise the lower classes, than any of the socialist regimes. "

hmmm.....
very easily debatable; i'd provide some concrete sources if you are really gonna push this.

11/20/2007 11:23:14 AM

^^ You don't have to convince me.

I know someone personally who believes that no criminal should have any luxury. THey should spend the entirety of their term in jail, no TV, no exercise, eating bread and water. Obviously, this person is a conservative as well. And what's even more screwy is that this person has done more illegal things that most people, just never got caught. His justification is that they are criminals and it's their punishment.

It boils down to whether people believe prisons can serve as rehabilitation, or if they are purely for punishment. I've never seen anything to indicate that prison for punishment only is the best way. Some people are beyond help, but I bet the majority of people in prison can reform.

11/20/2007 11:32:27 AM

I think they should be treated a little worse in prison


not inhumane or what not...



but I also feel like once they have served their time they should no longer be "ex cons"... they should be able to vote, and in some circumstances, be able to own or possess firearms (defense of ones family & home)

11/20/2007 12:13:12 PM

yeah the one thing i severely disagree with in our current system is how once you fuck up you are pretty much severely hindered from progressing in society which leads many ex-cons back into crime or prevents them from fully meeting their potential in society. Once convicted of a felony you have to list it on every job application hence forth.

I can understand companies not wanting to hire someone who is a convicted thief or with a criminal history in violent crimes. On the other hand someone who say was caught with 3 oz of pot as a stupid 18 yr old his now severely hindered and pretty much a casualty of the system. These days even getting convicted of a DUI can often prevent you from getting a lot of jobs.

11/20/2007 12:27:20 PM

^ so then what you are saying is not that felonies should be treated harshly; rather, you are saying that we've got too many bullshit things that are felonies.

I think that having a felony should be a serious thing and that it should preempt you from certain privileges that others enjoy. But, I don't think that 3oz of pot should be a felony.

Furthermore, I think that inmates should EARN their keep. What better way to rehabilitate a man than to show him that he must earn his shelter, bread, and water? Prisons right now are nothing more than a highly structured resort stay. Inmates sue for not getting enough KOOL-AID, for fuck's sake. Then, to make it worse, inmates who normally aren't violent are forced into the ways of violence in order to survive in prison, what with the multitude of gangs and shit. What are our prisons really accomplishing? Absolutely nothing.

11/20/2007 6:16:03 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, I think that inmates should EARN their keep. What better way to rehabilitate a man than to show him that he must earn his shelter, bread, and water? Prisons right now are nothing more than a highly structured resort stay. Inmates sue for not getting enough KOOL-AID, for fuck's sake. Then, to make it worse, inmates who normally aren't violent are forced into the ways of violence in order to survive in prison, what with the multitude of gangs and shit. What are our prisons really accomplishing? Absolutely nothing."

Agreed.

Going back to my post above; on a much less serious scale this happens when it comes to various traffic infractions and misdemeanors. When caught going 76 in a 65 on I40 (half the time this is the pace of most of traffic anyway) by some cop trying to reach his quota and bring in country revenue it sucks bad enough getting bullied out of $125 wasting 1/2 a work day to show up in court.
What makes this worst is getting bent over and raped by your car insurance.

Hate to get off topic but if auto insurance can rape me b.c i drive a little faster then the mean. Then i should get to pay less on my health insurance b.c fatties will get stuck paying premium since they are a bigger liability in the health industry

11/20/2007 6:38:41 PM

we will pass 9 million today!!!

11/21/2007 11:11:23 AM

Quote :

"I know someone personally who believes that no criminal should have any luxury. THey should spend the entirety of their term in jail, no TV, no exercise, eating bread and water. Obviously, this person is a conservative as well. And what's even more screwy is that this person has done more illegal things that most people, just never got caught. His justification is that they are criminals and it's their punishment. "

I actually almost completely agree with this. My point was that once someone has served their time, and gets out of jail, they are shit out of luck. The system is setup to fuck you once you get out. The terms of probation, and ridiculous nature of regulations and rules to get things done and come back into society makes it extremely difficult to stay head above water and keep on the straight and narrow.

The situation is almost impossible for those people who have no family or GOOD friends to fall back on. All too often ex-cons end up having to rely on the same crowd that landed them in jail in the first place.

11/21/2007 11:06:39 PM

The man wants a return to the gold standard.

I

11/22/2007 12:42:39 PM

Quote :

"I actually almost completely agree with this. My point was that once someone has served their time, and gets out of jail, they are shit out of luck. The system is setup to fuck you once you get out. The terms of probation, and ridiculous nature of regulations and rules to get things done and come back into society makes it extremely difficult to stay head above water and keep on the straight and narrow."

How can you agree with that, then go on to make the rest of the paragraph?

You do realize that conditions like what you support would make the result that you're against noticeably worse?

Criminals don't see the world like we do (be "we" I mean intelligent people). They are not able to analyze their life and say "hey, this is bad I shouldn't do it." They are more basic in their response to their environment and have to be coaxed in to things by environmental influences and pressures.

THere is a special about this on Discovery Channel or National Geographic coming up soon too...

11/22/2007 12:52:35 PM

Quote :

"Criminals don't see the world like we do"

So the person who made a mistake and got caught w/ a oz of weed or the college kid that fucked up like we all day and got caught drinking and driving doesn't see the world the same way we do???

11/22/2007 2:31:47 PM

Yes, I was 100% talking about all criminals, unconditionally.

11/22/2007 2:32:51 PM

^I'm not saying there shouldnt be educational and vocational training and work in prison.

There shouldn't be the down-time activities though, they need to be working to pay for their own incarceration. But it doesnt matter how much you rehabilitate while someone is in prison if you drop them out on the street without resources or fallbacks once they get out of prison.

11/22/2007 9:11:08 PM

people say that law enforcement alone can't round up all of the illegals

so we should get the very citizens who want the illegally-filled jobs to do the rounding up



there should be some non-profit organization that serves ex-cons that can't find work

by assisting them in going around "busting" illegal immigrant workers

and after the illegals' arrest and deportation, the ex-cons would immediately fill the now available job

so that it can't be reclaimed by the illegal, should they return

sounds good, eh?

11/23/2007 7:36:50 AM

no b.c then i would pay higher costs for a variety of shit that cheap illegal immigrant labor current helps to make/pick/clean.

11/23/2007 11:34:19 AM

^^ that's just it. We don't HAVE TO round them all up. That's a huge fucking strawman. But, what we do is we DEPORT THEM IMMEDIATELY when we find them, end of story. The po-po picks up a guy and he turns out to be an illegal alien? DEPORT HIM. This isn't fucking rocket science here. And then, how do you pay for the deportation? CHARGE THE COMPANY THAT EMPLOYED HIM. That company aided and abetted a criminal. Let it pay for the criminal's deportation.

Gee, but that makes too much fucking sense...

11/23/2007 9:36:50 PM

Illegal immigration by mexicans only hurts the working and poor classes. On the other hand the middle and upper classes have a net benefit. aaronburro is some wetback stealing your construction or berry picking job; is this why you have such hatred toward illegal mexican immigrants???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

[Edited on November 25, 2007 at 1:51 AM. Reason : l]

11/25/2007 1:51:26 AM

the reason i dont like all this illegal immigration is that its too quick and it brings up a problem

mexican come here, work hard, have kids
the kids will go to public school where they mix in with other kids
and when they graduate what do you think they'll wanna do
construction? heck no, they'll wanna be like all their buddies, in a cubicle
and in one generation the millions of illegal immigrants dissapear from low wage jobs
then what? let more in?
no this aint gonna work

11/25/2007 2:04:33 AM

Quote :

"the kids will go to public school where they mix in with other kids"

Would you rather not be attending school; leading to increased interest in participating in criminal behavior in order to make income??? Since they were born in this country it we will not be able to deport them when they fuck up like we could their parents.

BTW if you are worried about people stealing your cubicle jobs then you need to bitch about all the indians/orientals coming over here taking a large chunk of the office jobs. Or you should bitch about how many corporations now export those cubicle jobs.

11/25/2007 11:41:59 AM

Obviously it would be much better if they were a permanent underclass as determined by birth.

11/25/2007 2:05:22 PM

Quote :

"is this why you have such hatred toward illegal mexican immigrants???"

actually, I have nothing against mexicans. But hey, keep playing the race card. it makes you look smart, especially when you do that instead of refute my points

11/25/2007 2:19:47 PM

Quote :

"Obviously it would be much better if they were a permanent underclass as determined by birth."

you joke but what is the selling point for illegal immigrations?
they will do low wage labor.
so that is pretty much a very short term benefit, so is it worth it?

11/25/2007 2:26:43 PM

is it worth it? no.

11/25/2007 2:28:49 PM

deyy tukkk err jerbsss

right aaronburro

11/25/2007 7:13:31 PM

Good Washington Post article on Paul, his campaign's performance, the term "libertarian", and his supporters' alienation from the two parties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

11/26/2007 9:22:00 AM

^

Quote :

"lib·er·tar·ian n. 1. a person who believes in the doctrine of the freedom of the will 2. a person who believes in full individual freedom of thought, expression and action 3. a freewheeling rebel who hates wiretaps, loves Ron Paul and is redirecting politics By Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch Washington Post; Sunday, Nov 25, 2007; Pg B01 How to make sense of the Ron Paul revolution? What's behind the improbably successful (so far) presidential campaign of a 72-year-old 10-term Republican congressman from Texas who pines for the gold standard while drawing praise from another relic from the hyperinflationary 1970s, punk-rocker Johnny Rotten? Now with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters, Paul set a one-day GOP record by raising $4.3 million on the Internet from 38,000 donors on Nov. 5 -- Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a British anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605. Paul's campaign, which is three-quarters of the way to its goal of raising "$12 Million to Win" by Dec. 31, didn't even organize the fundraiser -- an independent-minded supporter did. When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics. That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries. Paul, who entered Congress in 1976, has been dubbed "Dr. No" by his colleagues because of his consistent nay votes on federal spending, military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere, and virtually all expansions of federal power (he cast one of three GOP votes against the original USA Patriot Act). But his philosophy of principled libertarianism is anything but negative: It's predicated on the fundamental notion that a smaller government allows individuals the freedom to pursue happiness as they see fit. Given such a live-and-let-live ethos, it's no surprise that at a time when people run screaming from such labels as "liberal" and "conservative," you can hardly turn around in Washington, Hollywood or even Berkeley without running into another self-described libertarian. The lefty Internet titan Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas penned a widely read manifesto last year pegging the future of his party to the "Libertarian Democrat." The conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg declared this year that he's "much more of a libertarian" lately. Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, Tucker Carlson, "South Park" co-creator Matt Stone -- self-described libertarians all. Surely it's a milestone when Drew Carey, the new host of that great national treasure "The Price Is Right," becomes an outspoken advocate of open borders, same-sex marriage, free speech and repealing drug prohibition. As Michael Kinsley, an arch purveyor of conventional wisdom, wrote recently in Time magazine, such people are going to be "an increasingly powerful force in politics." Kinsley is hardly alone in recognizing this trend. In April 2006, the Pew Research Center published a study suggesting that 9 percent of Americans -- more than enough to swing every presidential election since 1988 -- espouse a "libertarian" ideology that opposes "government regulation in both the economic and the social spheres." That is, a good chunk of your fellow citizens are fiscally conservative and socially liberal; in bumper-stickerese, they love their countrymen but distrust their government. Anyone looking to win elections -- or to make sense of contemporary U.S. politics -- would do well to understand the deep and growing reservoir that Paul is tapping into. Though relatively unknown at the national level, Paul is hardly an unknown legislative quantity. A former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, he has at various times called for abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, the CIA and several Cabinet-level agencies. A staunch opponent of abortion, he nonetheless believes that federal bans violate the more basic principle of delegating powers to the states. A proponent of a border wall with Mexico (nativist CNN host Lou Dobbs fawned over Paul earlier this year), he is the only GOP candidate to come out against any form of national I.D. card. Such positions may not be fully consistent or equally attractive, but Paul's insistence on a constitutionally limited government has won applause from surprising quarters. Singer Barry Manilow donated the maximum $2,300 to his campaign; the hipster singer-songwriter John Mayer was videotaped yelling "Ron Paul knows the Constitution!" and 67,000 people have signed up for Paul-related Meet Up pages on the Internet. On ABC's "This Week" recently, George Will half-jokingly cautioned his fellow pundits, "Don't forget my man Ron Paul" in the New Hampshire primary. Fellow panelist Jake Tapper seconded the emotion, saying, "He really is the one true straight talker in this race." Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and pundits flustered, if not openly hostile. The Associated Press recently treated the Paul phenomenon like an alien life form: "The Texas libertarian's rise in the polls and in fundraising proves that a small but passionate number of Americans can be drawn to an advocate of unorthodox proposals." Republican pollster Frank Luntz has denounced Paul's supporters as "the equivalent of crabgrass . . . not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff." And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians." When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era attorney general Janet Reno's FBI in Waco, Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened. And little wonder. In the 1990s, conservative Republicans rose to power by relentlessly attacking Big Government. Yet the minute they took control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they kicked out the jams on even a semblance of fiscal responsibility, signing off on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and building literal and figurative bridges to nowhere. From 2001 to 2008, federal outlays will have grown by an estimated 29 percent in inflation-adjusted terms, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The biggest Big Government expansion during the Bush era is the one that Americans now despise most: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose direct costs are already an estimated $800 billion, plus 4,000 American lives. Paul's steadfast bring-the-troops-home stance -- not just from Iraq, but Korea and Japan as well -- is the major engine powering his grass-roots success as ostensibly antiwar Democrats in the majority can't or won't do anything on Capitol Hill. But if war were the only answer for his improbable run, why Ron Paul instead of the perennial peacenik Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic congressman from Ohio whose apparent belief in UFOs is only slightly less kooky than his belief in the efficacy of socialized health care? Part of the reason is Republican muscle memory. Paul's "freedom message" is the direct descendant of Barry Goldwater's once-dominant GOP philosophy of libertarianism (which Ronald Reagan described in a 1975 Reason magazine interview as "the very heart and soul of conservatism"). But that tradition has been under a decade-long assault by religious-right moralists, neoconservative interventionists and a governing coalition that has learned to love Medicare expansion and appropriations pork. So Paul's challenge represents a not-so-lonely GOP revival of unabashed libertarianism. All his major Republican competitors want to double down on Bush's wars; none is stressing any limited-government themes, apart from half-hearted promises to prune pork and tinker on the margins of Social Security. "

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 9:50 AM. Reason : scroll]

11/26/2007 9:45:09 AM

^cont'

Quote :

" College kids (a key bloc of Paul's support) have seen no recent evidence that the GOP has anything to do with libertarianism. Yet there's no reason to believe that Democrats will do anything useful about the government intrusion that so many young people abhor: the drug war, federal bans on same-sex marriage, online poker prohibitions, open-ended deployments in Iraq. This is the mile-wide gap in the Maginot line of "serious" Washington politics. Undergrads aren't the only ones weary of war and moralizing, and more interested in exploring new frontiers of technology and culture than in heeding the stale noise coming from inside the Beltway. More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism. And with the dreary prospect of a Giuliani vs. Clinton death match in 2008, that hunger is likely to grow even faster than the size of the federal government or the casualty toll in Iraq. Ron Paul may lose next year's battle -- though not without a memorable fight -- but the laissez-faire agitators he has helped energize will find themselves at the leading edge of American politics and culture for years to come. gillespie@reason.com matt.welch@reason.com Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch are editors at Reason magazine."

11/26/2007 9:51:45 AM

I guess someone doesn't like Ron Paul.
Just saw this in the coliseum parking deck about an hour ago.

11/26/2007 3:52:24 PM

^

11/26/2007 9:27:33 PM

11/27/2007 5:36:49 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul Is Wrong, Proves Washington Post by James W. Harris Appearing a few weeks ago on the Tonight Show, libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told host Jay Leno that his plan to abolish the hated federal income tax would still leave government funding at year 2000 levels. Wrong! False! cried the ever-vigilant Washington Post. After careful study, the Post declared that, in reality, if Ron Paul ended the personal income tax and replaced it with nothing, federal revenues would fall to... 1995 levels. Oh, no! Not that! How could America get by with only the tiny, minuscule federal government of the Clinton years? Please don't throw us in that briar patch! Actually, we don't recall many people in 1995 saying the federal government wasn't big enough. In fact, we remember those radical anti-government activists Bill Clinton and Al Gore attacking the federal government as being bloated, and declaring "the era of Big Government is over." (Alas, it turns out they were a tad over-optimistic.) So, yeah, we could live with abolishing the income tax even if Dr. Paul's estimates are off by a few years. The Republic would survive. But are Paul's figures really off, even by the Post's absurdly nit-picking standard? The Cato Institute's Daniel J. Mitchell checked it out: "The Post's criticism is akin to condemning a book because the typesetting was not centered on a few pages. The real issue is whether America would be a stronger and more prosperous nation if government was reduced to the levels envisioned by the Founding Fathers. ... The Post also fixates on whether the Paul campaign has identified $1.1 trillion of savings to match the forgone revenue from eliminating the income tax. "In attempting to figure out where the $1.1 trillion in *annual* savings is going to come from in a Paul administration, I talked yesterday afternoon to the candidate's policy director, Joseph Becker. He pointed out that Paul has promised to bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, eliminate foreign aid, eliminate agriculture subsidies, and get rid of the U.S. Education Department... "The candidate almost certainly would favor the elimination (or transfer to the states) of the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Labor, Commerce, and Health and Human Services... "Indeed, because he also would gradually turn entitlement programs into systems based on personal accounts (and shift welfare components back to the state and local levels), the long-term savings would significantly exceed the amount of money collected by the personal income tax." "

Here are Ron Paul's bits during the 11/28 YouTube debate:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017271.html

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 9:57:17 AM

This, though, is the most important segment.



That's the kind of look one deserves to get for saying our isolationism gave rise to Hitler's power.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 12:41 PM. Reason : a]

11/29/2007 12:34:57 PM

EarthDogg say it isn't so!!! Are you saying the liberal democrats led by Bill Clinton in the 90's shrank the size of gov't and practiced fiscal responsibility. Whereas the "conservative" republican president has exponentially bloated the size of gov't (espicially when it come to DoD and gestapo type policing agencies) and run us into a serious debt.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 12:46 PM. Reason : a]

11/29/2007 12:46:26 PM

^^I've never seen someone get owned by a facial expression like that.

11/29/2007 3:05:26 PM

McCain pretty much proved Godwin's Law last night

11/29/2007 4:07:20 PM