idrankwhat

AAaaaaaaaaaaMen!

They're biased towards whatever they think will sell.

Your "new" model is the same old thing, it's just that it used to be blatant for only one party and hidden for the other, now it's business as usual and in your face for both. So I assume you also have issues with the fiscal policies of both parties - especially that they have a bloated number of expenses than needed drastic cutting - it's not the income side that's out of control, it's the spending side as far as raising taxes helps vs raising taxes hurts, well, the left has a theory that focuses on the primary output variables, the right thinks the secondary effects are more powerful....Either is correct depending on the context and timing in the economy....But it's solely about how much to take in, not about what we spend it on. The only way to reduce debt is to drastically reduce spending, not just slow down the rate of increase, make everyone a taxpayer and an owner in the economy (eliminate any kind of 0% tax bracket, even in lieu of a token tax just for) to eliminate a general and growing sense of "me me me". People need to understand that every dime the government spends isn't "free", it's comes out of all of our pockets. all you partisan types are all fighting over income, not expenses and it's just the wrong focus IMO of course Actually I always considered myself an independent, or possibly "liberaltarian". The reason that I give the R's such a hard time is because I hate what they've become since the late 80's. I disagreed with the whole Reagan piss on my back and tell me it's trickling ideology but at least it had a decent theory behind and was worthy of debate. Basically after the R's got the purse strings in the 90's they've proven that they aren't who they said they were going to be (which, IMHO is why "trickle down" won't/hasn't work/worked). And then when the got Mr. "Compassionate" in the WH the R's went completely bonkers. They have completely shattered the myth that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. There is absolutely NO comparision to the waste and personal profiteering at the public trough that we've seen in the last six years, except for maybe Boss Tweed. To pretend that it is just politics as usual and not factor in the massive upscaling is disingenuous at best. And I agree that spending is the problem. I where I disagree with many on the right these days is where the money that we do spend should be spent. And I agree that there should be no zero tax bracket. Knocking about 70,000 pages out of the tax code would be a good start towards correcting that.

nuts, both parties work on the borrowed dime - "tax and borrow" vs "tax and pork", take your choice You're still thinking old school. The newer model is "don't tax (but if you have to make sure that the middle class pays for it), borrow like crazy (from friends, enemies, who cares?), pork out at a record levels and don't even bother to fund your own government operations".

what are the differences, on a quick glance they both look pretty gay (other than they gave Clinton devil horns) Clinton's lighting was from the side. If that isn't a dead give away for favoritism then I don't know what is Besides, you know how some Republicans hate having things brought out into full light

Dam, now I get it. If it hurts the R's and helps the D's then to hell with ethics. Very good Thanks for clearing that up (as if this is a new revealation) Apparently you don't get it. That ethics report (as put out by the committee that was shut down for over a year for doing its job on DeLay) was a fitting and predictable swan song for this lame excuse for a Congress. Why start being accountable now?

I never meant to imply that there should be a law. I think it would be the right thing to do....no actually I think the right thing to do would be to hold a special election. But with the laws as they are the Gov has the authority to make the appointment so I expect him to, and I expect him to appoint an "R" and I also expect that he'll have plenty of input from the national party to help him out...you know......simply for moral support

I'll disagree vehemently with the first half of the statement and buy you a for the second half. My inlaws are a perfect example when I asked why they voted for Bush in '04. Answer: "we've always voted Republican". The Doc in the office next to me used to vote in TX where all he had to do was throw one lever to vote straight party.

Because the voters chose one. Not that it will happen but it would represent his states's choice. Republican leadership would not likely stand by and let him do it so the point is really moot.

Source: Washington Times I can't look it up right now but I believe there was a story that named the REPUBLICAN who originally shopped the story. Regardless of who put it out there, it needed to be put out there and who gives a shit if it hurt the R's in the election. They deserved it for ignoring it in the first place AND they proved a few days ago, when the released the house ethics report that they still don't know a thing about integrity. $0.02

GOP would have the majority with Cheney's vote. I believe that the R's would also hold the committee chairmen seats. Basically, we'd return to absolute gridlock an no hope of any check on the executive branch. As for "compromised" legislators still holding their positions, Biden's was in the 80's, can't remember why but you need to look no further than Strom Thrumond as the king of compromise in that dept.

So did it say that the gulf stream is entirely responsible for Europes mild climate and without it we europeans are going to freeze to death? Cos thats what the popular press says. If that's what the popular press, and my overstated assertion, implies then it's incorrect. The gulf stream won't likely totally "shut down" but it will slow significantly enough to drop temps by a degree or so, like it did from about 1200 to 1850 AD when the current decreased by about 10%. Apparently temps dropped by about 1 deg C. As for reference sources I'd stick to the peer reviewed stuff.

I say why should we spend millions cutting back on CO2 ... You answer, because we can cut back on CO2 Lets spend millions on cutting back on reality TV shows. Why? Because we can I thought that the benefits of cutting back on baby stupifying heavy metal pollution (no, not Twisted Sister....which is really not metal but I digress) and increasing energy efficiency were obvious. Apparently not. But I'm with you on the reality show idea. They're worse for your brain that mercury and we get no real benefit in return.

Because by using clean renewable resources for power we will cut back on CO2 emissions AND all those things that are emitted with it, mercury being one of them. As for the cow farts, we could always eat less beef. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE a good tenderloin, but I do know that I could and should eat less of it. I need to eat more veggies, they're better for you and they take up much less energy to produce than a steak. I think it takes about 16 lbs of veggies to produce 1 lb of steak and that doesn't take into account the amount of water or fossile fuels involved in producing/delivering the meat. Small collective changes in lifestyle can make a big difference.

Considering your location, I'd say this is more likely the problem you and your neighbors will be dealing with. Shutting down the gulf stream will likely just piss off the fishermen over here on this side of the pond

Conservative liberals don't spend nearly as much as compassionate conservatives, and they prefer to find a source of revenue to offset the cost of the funds that they do spend. They also have a tendency to spend Treasury monies investing in their constituents rather than their campaign donors, generally speaking.

Not in the same day

So when George W. Bush says "I am a conservative", which type are we supposed to assume? The spendthrift type, warmongering type, incompetent type, lying type, Constitution defiling type, or all of the above? He's a CONservative. The kind that gives politicians a bad name

Well of course not. it couldn't be, cause that would have the US carry soem blame.....and that is utterly unthinkable.... I am so desperately trying to avoid posting that there was no such thing as "al Qaeda in Iraq" before we violated international law to start this war of choice. Except for that one training camp in the Kurdish North of course......which was protected by the no fly zone......and under control of Talibani......who is now the President of Iraq. But I'll try to refrain from pointing out the obvious. Ooops

Maybe so, but we all know that this season is specifically for celebrating the birth of a long haired, clean shaven, pasty faced white guy.

And that's where you lost me

It's really not that surprising. Not that this is news to anyone but Baker and the Bush's have very strong ties to the Saudi's. It's all about the money, always has been, always will be.

Your claim was that the delay in commenting was until Limbaugh told people what to say. Perhaps the reason for the delay is some people, unlike you apparently, wanted to actually read the document first, before commenting. And perhaps not. How many people do you really think have read the full text? Did you? rushmc? I doubt even Limbaugh read the whole thing.

How many Romans?