JK2000

You may be right, Biden's intrade has skyrocketed today. https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/...z=1219172629609 By the way isn't this (https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=607629&z=1219173012531) a free 600$? There's no way Obama could be the Democrat VP right?

A Tancredo-Richardson ticket.

This joke is a rip-off of a racist joke involving Bill Clinton, a helicopter, an African American man, water skiing, and alligators.

That reminds me of the joke "What is the only bumper sticker that makes 100% of people who see it angry? A bumper sticker that says 'I love n-words'".

I think most people have tuned out your constant link spamming to the point that when you've actually posted something good people don't even want to check it out. I recommend everyone read this however, it reminds me of Jesse Ventura saying something to the effect that American Democracy offers the voter only one more choice than Communist China.

Their is a difference between minor grammar/punctuation mistakes and butchering the common idiom "reaching across the aisle" into "reaching across the isle". An isle is an island while an aisle is a space for walking between seating, shelving, and the like. Is this too much for you to comprehend? You probably still think "guerilla warfare" is "gorilla warfare".

Even by your standards this post is useless. You need to instill some quality control into your selection of links you choose to post. You don't need to post every single link you've ever clicked on here.

Biden would be the perfect attack dog but at any moment he could say something completely retarded!

Mark my words, it will be Clinton. This whole VP process for Obama reminds me of Parcells jerking us around with the first overall pick. Like he was ever really going to pick Vernon Gholston!!!!!

Now that's two morons who don't know that the expression is "other side of the aisle/across the aisle" and not "other side of the isle/across the aisle".

Amazing post! Can we sticky this? What else did you see on TV tonight?

Same side of the isle or aisle????????

Wow, Bush comes off great in this article! "And then there is the administration's record outside of foreign policy. Bush 43 has surely been the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, taking surpluses that equaled 2.5 percent of GDP and turning them into deficits that are 3 percent. This is a $4 trillion hit on the country's balance sheet. On the central issue of energy policy—the greatest economic challenge and opportunity of our times—Bush has been utterly obstructionist, recycling the self-serving arguments of industry lobbyists. On the whole, Bush's record remains one of failure and missed opportunities" "There was a U.S. president who came into office convinced that everything his predecessor had done was feckless, stupid, ill-informed and venal. He rejected and tried to reverse everything that he could, almost as an article of faith. Before he had even examined the policies carefully, he knew that they had to be changed. The base of his party was delighted by his clarity and fighting spirit. That president, of course, was George W. Bush. His decision to blindly repudiate anything associated with Bill Clinton is what got us into this mess in the first place." "A broad shift in America's approach to the world is justified and overdue. Bush's basic conception of a "global War on Terror," to take but the most obvious example, has been poorly thought-through, badly implemented, and has produced many unintended costs that will linger for years if not decades."

Awww did I hurt your feelings because I exposed your dreamboat McCain as being a hypocrite?

You left out porno aficionado (1962- 2008) and pop can pube spotter (1985-1988). Are you really that stupid that you don't know what a "town hall style meeting" is? How many questions did McCain or Obama take from the audience? And by the way Obama never said that Thomas lacked experience, his quote was "I don't think he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time".

I know that Hillary has been "ruled out" but I still think it will be her. I'm going to buy some Hillary for VP contracts on intrade just for fun, maybe hedge my bet with a few Biden/Kaine contracts as well.

Isn't "adhering to the constitution" a pretty big part of a SC Justice's job? Why would McCain vote to confirm someone who he feels hasn't "adhered to the constitution"? Shouldn't "not adhering to the constitution" and "legislating from the bench" which results in "some of the worst damage" be classified as dangerous?

No sh--, both candidates will say anything to get elected! Go figure!

I didn't say that they were dummy. McCain was the one trying to score political points with his Jesusfreak base by claiming that 5 SC Justices, whom he voted to confirm, were damaging the country because they don't adhere to his interpretation of the Constitution and are therefore "legislating from the bench". He could have voted against their confirmation, it's not like no one else did. He could have joined fellow wackjob Jesse Helms!

No but other abortion cases have come before the SC such as Planned Parenthood v Casey which would have effectively overturned Roe.

McCain's own words (sorry about the caps/format) "WELL, I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS INCREDIBLE RESPONSIBILITY IN NOMINATING PEOPLE TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. THEY ARE LIFETIME POSITIONS AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL BENCH. THERE WILL BE TWOMAYBE THREE VACANCIES. THIS NOMINATION SHOULD BE BASED ON THE CRITERIA OF PROVEN RECORD OF STRICTLY ADHERING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND NOT LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. SOME OF THE WORST DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE BY LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. AND BY THE WAY, JUSTICES ALITO AND ROBERTS ARE TWO OF MY MOST RECENT FAVORITES, BY THE WAY. THEY REALLY ARE. THEY ARE VERY FINE AND I'M PROUD OF PRESIDENT BUSH FOR NOMINATING THEM" Doesn't that sound like McCain feels that these justices are "incompetent or dangerous"? McCain thinks that these 5 justices are not adhering to the Constitution, that sounds pretty dangerous to me.

kennedy, breyer, souter, ginsberg, and stevens!!!!!! Quick enough??????????

Big news!!! Your awesome posting here has made headlines!!!!! http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local...post_comment_on

McCain never made that distinction. McCain clearly stated that he would not have nominated these SCJ because they "legislate from the bench". He had an opportunity to oppose these "bench legislators" on the record during their confirmation but he chose not to out of political convenience. He was being a big phony pander bear!

Nice try. It wouldn't have anything to do with your below average intelligence, now would it?