John Adams

What kind of penalties do you propose? And for what?

Besides that though, he's awesome! Losman-et al., don't you think you undermine any credibility by suggesting Houston? They have on of the best young RBs in the league.

I saw the movie, and it was actually pretty overt. That being said, I agree with your premise not to see the movie... not because of the homosexuality though, but because of the fact that it sucked. Colin Farrell is a talented guy, but he played an unconvincing Alexander. He was an unconvincing leader and his "I am William Wallace" speech was terrible.

You want him banned for this thread? Yeesh. He's a blabbernouth, but there's nothing wrong in all this. I thought you left.

At least movies are getting better than they used to be. Remember the one about the woman and her suspicious living arrangements with the seven midgets? That's what caused David Koresh and Charles Manson.

Here in PA, the regional rail line that supports Philly has a 63 million dollar "shortfall" AKA Eff-up. The solution: raise our state gas tax to make it second only to Rhode Island. In the case of PA, it's the Dem. Governor who came up with the plan. God forbid we actually lay some people off and cut service or get more efficient. Wahoo. Thanks to the rest of the state for supporting SEPTA, which is already the most expensive public transportaion system in the country to commute on (yes- I'm a SEPTA commuter).

Here's a small sampling of the pork in the latest budget. pork up Republicans! Way to go Here's what McCain said about all this on MTP this past weekend. (For entire transcript, go here-- BTW, check out the portion of the transcript where McCain talks about Evangelicals in the Republican party.) *** MR. RUSSERT: Congress voted for a $388 billion spending bill. They passed it 65-to-30 in the Senate. You said it's a big, fat turkey. SEN. McCAIN: Well, it's loaded with pork-barrel projects. Since 1990--in 1994, there were 4,000 earmarks. This year there were 14,000 earmarks. This is these special deal projects ranging from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to studying the DNA of bears in Montana. It's outrageous. The system is broken. We need to fix it. We've got to have some kind of way of challenging these earmarks. We've got to have the president perhaps have the line-item veto. We've got to exercise not only overall budgetary control, but stop these earmarks. We're harming agencies like NASA and their ability to carry out their mission because we're diverting so much of the funds to other projects that are unnecessary and wasteful. MR. RUSSERT: Senator, Republicans control the Senate. SEN. McCAIN: Yes. MR. RUSSERT: Republicans control the House. SEN. McCAIN: Yes, sir. MR. RUSSERT: Republicans control the White House. SEN. McCAIN: Yes, sir. MR. RUSSERT: It's a Republican problem. SEN. McCAIN: It certainly is, and we're going to have to fix it. And I believe that part of our base, of the Republican base, is fiscal conservatives and they're very unhappy. I hear from them all the time. MR. RUSSERT: In the House version of this spending bill, there was a provision which said that the Appropriations Committee should have access to taxpayers' tax returns. How did that happen? SEN. McCAIN: What happens here is that they slap these omnibus bills together--as you mentioned, this one's nine bills that we should have passed separately--nobody sees them or reads them. It was a 1,630- page document yesterday that was presented to us sometime in the morning, and we voted on it in the evening. The system is broken, and everybody, of course, wanted to get out of town, understandably. MR. RUSSERT: Why should Congress have access to citizens' tax returns? SEN. McCAIN: According to--Senator Stevens' explanation on the floor last night was that two staffers put in this provision and no one knew about it until another Senator Conrad staffer discovered it. MR. RUSSERT: What was their motive? SEN. McCAIN: That should--you know, I don't know. I can't imagine. But the fact that our system is such that that would ever be inserted and passed by the House of Representatives--if there's ever a graphic example of the broken system that we now have, that certainly has to be it.

Good stuff TB. I usually don't read the extreme whacko sites, but seeing as how this one is pretty influential, especially over what gets aired and what doesn't, I checked it out. Unreal. Shrek is about accepting premarital sex.

What great advertising. Of course he's a scumbag. I heard this guy on our local Conservative talkshow yesterday and his schtick is to say outrageous things and be offensive - at a political level. Imagine a liberal amalgam of Stern and Limbaugh. He was calling callers stupid, telling Conservatives to get back to the Klan rally, etc. That he called Rice Aunt Jemima is no surprise.

Sure... mock the talking snake. But can you prove that there was no such thing as the talking snake? I thought not. Therefore, it goes in the science book. See how easy that is.

That's two times in one day that you seem to think the founding fathers lived in this great moral society. The world the founding fathers lived in was a nightmare of immorality- and a lot of them actually engaged and trafficked in it.

From the 16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. *** I guess some jackwad lawyer would say that there's no law that requires you to pay the taxes, but it seems to me like giving the feral government the power to lay and collect taxes means that you have to pay... or else.

Solution: private education and/or home schooling.

Killing women and children was commonplace in their day. As was whoring, gambling, and extra-marital sex. I don't think the Founding Fathers would be so shocked.

Rather than try suspending the Constitution here, because frankly, some dumb video game scares me a little less than suspending the Constitution, maybe you could find a nice place without such privileges (Saudi Arabia perhaps), and settle down there.

Being able to incur debt is important, so the BB amendment would have to be riddled with so many exceptions that it would be meaningless. The point though, is that we shouldn't need a GD Constitutional Amendment to make this happen; the current supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans should fix this damn thing now, starting with shrinking the size of government. I wouldn't be so upset with paying money towards the debt if it wasn't continuing to grow. Hell, if we were paying down our debt on the way to wiping it out, I would be TOTALLY on board with it. Better that we take care of this nightmare than leaving it for our children. We're already saddled with the Social Security problem. I'd like the challenge of being in the group of 20-40 year olds that must deal with the nightmare left by the ME-generation baby-boomers. Let us fix our financial woes so the 0-20 year olds don't have to.

Amen to all of that. And worse, lame duck season is the season for pork. Watch all the spending that happens in the next two months.

From your mouth to any Republican's ears.

(I only snipped your post because it was long- not trying to take the above line out of context.) Let me axe you this. What disturbs me is not so much that we have a debt, but that we must pay a huge HUGE amount of money to pay the interest in said debt. So, at the end of the day, I have LESS money - a lot less money- in my pocket because of the interest we pay on the debt. Frankly, that's money I want back. And it seems that the only way for me to get that back is to minimize the debt, not keep it at a steady percentage of the GDP. Gavin- we may not get along, but I think to join the revolution, you have to buck most of the incumbants. Ron Paul can stay.

White House statements today about raising the ceiling go something like this: "We have to sign this so the government can keep functioning." Let's a tak a deep breath. This is OUR government, and only we can shackle it. But not with the over 95% incumbent reelection in Congress. Weeeeeeeeeeee

Rich doesn't care about 8.2 trillion or the fact that his kids will be paying it off. I love that every time this issue comes up, people come onto this board talking about how this is not a big deal. Right. I wish someone would buy that moveon.org commercial with the kids and run it every day. Hate moveon.org all you want, but that commercial was spot on.

I'm not a Democrat. Actually, no, marriage (and remarriage) rates wouldn't impact an analysis of divorce rates.

Of course it is. It's a measure, more than anything, of how much control you want the government to have over your life. It's no surprise that many people actually want less government in most aspects of their lives-- which corresponds to Libertarian principles. "Conservantives" and Liberals both advocate government control, just in different areas.

The quiz is all about what you want the government to control. To those IDed as Libertarians, get on board damn it!

Eff is the sound that the letter "F" makes. So Eff off is really F--- off, and I stick by it in the context of you wishing me Merry Christmas in November.