Chilly

Incorrect. Fair elections are just as important as ballot access in the essence of Democracy race (both are required). You can have all the ballot access in the world, but if the elections aren't fair, it aint a Democracy (this is one of the favorite tricks of totalitarian-ish regimes trying to pass themselves off as something else). America is far from having fair elections. Your doomsday scenario is a bit short-sighted and silly. Who do you think controls the Texas legislature and election laws? Prevent citizens from voting for their candidates? Nope, even *if* the Texas Legislature did not pass a law giving themselves ballot access, they still would have been eligible write-in candidates. Please, save the insults, they are a bit hypocritical when you don't know what you're talking about.

You sure about laughing at that? The candidates don't have to worry about the media flat out attacking them in the debates, because they don't want to lose access to the candidates. The media also prescreens the town hall debate questions to make sure that no such questions get asked. The contract from 2004 specifically states in one part that candidates and campaigns aren't allowed to see the questions.

Yes, Barr should have prevailed. As he points out, the two major parties don't let 3rd party candidates on the ballot all the time due to "bureaucratic technicality". They should get a taste of their own medicine, and be told they aren't above the law. Then they would have been placed in the awkward position of having to pass a law giving them ballot access. Not really, since he's simply trying to maximize his impact in every state. If the law says he should be on in that state, he should get on. If he didn't do what it says, he shouldn't get on. Without consistency, there is no fair election. The Texas supreme court and the two parties proved so in this case. That law isn't written to apply to only 3rd parties, but apparently it does (3rd parties have been disqualified because of it in the past). The law should be fair (same requirements for all parties to get on the ballot), and it shouldn't bend for ANY party if they don't meet its requirements. Unfortunately, there was nothing fair nor consistant with what happened in Texas.

You've gotta be shitting me. Please, show me where I've said what Sarah Palin said was anything but moronic. (I'll help: I called her a blathering idiot earlier in the thread.) To repeat: you're arguing against a point I HAVE NOT MADE. I was simply laughing at JK2000 for screwing up when he was laughing at Palin.

Until Palin's idiocy pisses Biden off so much, he says something sexist, like "Get back to the kitchen, you're out of your element."

I thought the debate did more to highlight their similarities than anything else.

Giving preferential treatment to only two of the parties by not following the law = democracy prevailing?

The Rams have little talent?

Other: 2girls1cup

If you guys want a good chuckle, listen to NPR's bit on Coach Belichick... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=94932049

How bout Texas before Oklahoma (which would have to be in a championship game?)

http://cyraxx.mirror.waffleimages.com/file...1d7d4826a76.jpg

buftex might

To take this further, from my understanding the measure is based upon scolarships...

82

He talks too much.

Yeah... I watched the video too, which is how I posted before he posted the transcript. And you're trying to argue against a point that I haven't made in this thread. I think you're a bit confused. PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes, and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions. Does that help?

Myspace is the ghetto of the internet. Facebook aint much better.

My father works for a bank doing software development for fraud detection. They always turn over all fraud evidence to the police, but the police don't give a damn. They don't bother to do anything with it.

lol. Isn't it great when someone posts something as evidence that proves they are wrong? One would think that two blathering idiots would speak each other's language, but I guess not.

Guess this is the new talking point?

Tom is right. You should have just went with the misheard dialect notion that GG threw to you, instead of posting a transcript that proved yourself incorrect. It wasn't? Read that transcript JK2000 pasted above, it's exactly what she said.

You mean the part where she says "reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions"?

Does anyone really believe Obama even read any incarnation of either Bush's three-page money-grab of the bipartisan solution just worked out? They have lots of people employed for a reason.