Chilly

I owe $80. According to turbo tax, thats around exactly the amount I want each year.

Damnit, I hooked the wrong guy. That post was intended for a goldfish.

Only when I've been drinking.

Personally, I certainly don't want all of government to be in charge of health care. What I've always wondered is: Why we don't advocate a middle ground? - A public and private health care system. Kind of a combination of the US and Canada. We would catch the people in the bottom without health insurance, yet still allow for a market based initiative to compete. Whats wrong with this?

Thats a sh------- promise. You didn't write it on any paper - this is an internet post.

Wow, crazy. <Que people who will say he was a thug playing at a thug basketball game>

Folz, excellent post. Even if people dont' agree with all of it, it was well thought out. I concur that you should post here more!

Yep.

Actually, it does. The distinction is important because liberals have started to hijack the term progressive after the term liberal was hijacked by the right in this country. True progressives view currently failing programs as just that - failing and would advocate a different solution. Historically, true progressives typically advocate a governmental solution (not always), but they view the government with an amount of distrust and are always looking for opportunities to reform governmental policies. Liberals are much more ideologically based. They trust that when they institute a policy, it will work. They are much less skeptical of the government and see much less need for reform. Liberals have hijacked the term "progressive" and applied it to their ideology as it shares a lot of similarities, but the difference is important for the exact reason that you are asking the question.

Not really. Answering the question would take a long discussion on the fundamental difference between the history of Democrats, the New Deal, current Democrats, and Progressivism. Your question implies that progressives are liberal Democrats, which they are not.

I don't have the energy to correct everything thats wrong in your posts. That one I thought was especially off, though, which is why I jumped on it.

"Genius"? Where, exactly, did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth. Anyone who gets that high in politics is smart enough to think up something such as Medicaid. The argument that LBJ is too stupid to think up Medicaid by himself lacks complete substance. LBJ's Great Society was based in part on both FDR and Kennedy's programs. Bill Moyers and Richard M. Goodwin, two of LBJ's assistants, and their committees had a great effect on LBJ's programs. However, Medicaid/Medicare in and of itself was not something FDR did nor LBJ did do it by himself. The Social Security Act of 1965 actually had more of its origins with Truman's administration. Truman was the president who approached Congress about starting a national health care program. There were debates about various proposals through the following years in Congress, the Social Security Administration, and the Medical Industry. In 1965 a bill was passed and then signed by LBJ's administration.

The man was elected Vice President of the United States, and your argument is that he wasn't smart enough to think up Medicaid? Think about that one for a bit.

Another poster that blames everything thats wrong in the world on liberals. Its a refreshing viewpoint indeed.

Yeah, its smart, for the simple reason that its much easier to soften policy later than to soften it now, observe the new regime, then try to strengthen it back up.

The Tampa-2 almost creates a cover-3 type zone, with the MLB getting the very back middle portion of the field. Having a MLB who is extremely good in coverage is a key. I'd welcome London back with open arms.

Entertainment.

Keep speculating. You'll get something right sometime.

Nope. Your mom is a joke, yet I still stole her from your dad.

Its gotten a couple laughs out of me over the 3 or 4 episodes I've had it on as background noise. In other words, it sucks.

And yet you keep posting.

Did Mencia make it different and new, or was it a blatant ripoff? It seems like the heart of our disagreement is I believe it was a ripoff, while you believe that he made it different with his delivery.

I don't understand the "5 yards downfield logic". In the cover-2, the MLB's job is to backup and defend the middle of the field. It makes sense, then, that his tackles are 5 yards down the field as thats where he plays.

So what? Its still Plagiarism. Even if someone sucks at delivering it, its still HIS work and HIS property. No matter how unfunny any comedian is in the delivery of their jokes, no other comedian has the right to steal his work. Joe Rogan, as unfunny as he may be, is the only one with enough balls to call them out.

The administration actively pursued a link between al Qaeda, Saddam, and Iraq. What I don't believe they said was that there was directly a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Still, the claim was that there was a link between the group responsible for 9/11 and the country that we were about to invade. This does EVERYTHING to play up the notion that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam, without actually stating that there was one. The administration played this up to the fullest to get support on their side (which has been disputed as even BEING correct by the former Undersecretary of Defense Feith, who had the task of double-checking the CIA data). Rather than being a piss poor job of explaining it, I think that the administration tried to use it to play politics. A true Global War on All Terrorism would not have gotten near the support that a Global War On Those !@#$s Who Did 9/11 would get. So, they say one thing while at the same time doing another in order to get the support they need to kick off the Iraq war.