NCclimber

I can't speak to his motivation, but deals liek that do not necessarily imply guilt. In my job I frequently make decisions to pay people eventhough we may not legally have to, nor do we assume guilt. Sometimes it is "cheaper" to pay some one and make something go away in a shorter term. Sometimes fighting in court will be costlier. really there are a myriad of reasons as to why he could have done so. Nice post. Bummer it doesn't offer any specifics.

The point I was trying to address is that there's a widely held belief that homophobia is just (key word there) about repressed desire. This term (and it's understanding) is used as a tool to intimidate people who openly speakout against gays or gay issues. I was just trying to show that we dislike many things because we find them repulsive or undesirable, not because we're suppressing our desires.

Would someone please explain to me why Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000.00, paid fines of $90,000.00 & $25,000.00 and agreed to have his law license suspended for five years? Was it because he did nothing wrong?

Vote early and vote often.

Perhaps you could explain why you think CAGW is lacking, instead of just going for the knee-jerk, who the hell are those guys, anyway. You might consider practicing what you preach.

Lying by our President may not be a big deal to you, Redirecting with a specious claim??? My turn - Internet child predators may not be a big deal to you, but it is to a lot of Americans.

I'm just guessing, but I'd say more times than not, people are repulsed by things because they actually find them repulsive, rather than a suppression of desire. What about pedophilia? Necrophilia? Zoophilia? I'd say most people find all three repulsive. Is that repulsion a manifestion of repressed desire?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html From the John Miller interview with Bin Laden; The Somalia operation, in some ways, made bin Laden. During the Afghan war, the CIA had been very aware of him (although the agency now insists it never "controlled" him), but in Somalia, bin Laden had taken a swing at the biggest kid in the school yard and given him a black eye. The next fight, a few weeks later, would begin with a sucker punch. Also, you should read Charlie Wilson's War; By the summer of 1980, the Afghan freedom fighters were beaten back by the onslaught of an invading Soviet army. Waves of refugees began pouring out of the country in neighboring Pakistan as entire villages were leveled in combat. A secret presidential finding by President Jimmy Carter ordered that a trickle of military support would be supplied to the Afghan fighters by the CIA. This small operation was to increase in scope to eventually become the largest covert involvement in the history of the United States. A small number of people controlled the destiny of the mujahideen. Foremost, there was Charlie Wilson, a Texas congressman. As he investigated the fighting first-hand, he began to feel that the United States should aid the freedom fighters to a much larger extent than what was being provided by the CIA. Of special concern to Wilson was the inability of the Afghan fighters to shoot down the Russian Hind, a heavily armored helicopter. His goal became to equip the resistance army with modern weapons including assault rifles, mortars, and anti-aircraft guns. This post does nothing to support your previous (bogus) claims. It's about comprehending what you do read.

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!" -Robert Burns That's good.

BFD. Government waste may not be a big deal to you, but it is to a lot of Americans.

It looks like you could benefit from a little reading up, too. Our people in Afghanistan had nothing to do with Bin Laden. We left Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out, before we eased relations with the Soviets. Do you really think they are open to "hashing it out"? CITE, please.

Filibusters are a tool that works best when used sparingly. If used often, they would very likely be eliminated, through legislation, as a viable method of challenging the majority. The minority party must choose there battles well when it comes to filibusters. A single spending bill is arguably less important than a lifetime SCOTUS appointment. While that may be true, it's irrelevant. Most, if not all of last years filibusters had nothing to do with SCOTUS nominations. The Dems make a big stink about hot button issues like Foley or the "culture of corruption" (until stories start coming out about their own indiscretions. Meanwhile, billions of pork gets quietly passed. Oh yeah... Sens. Clinton and Schummer(sp?) were selected as "Porkers of the Year" by CAGW.

How embarassing for HOMELAND SECURITY

The problem with that, for the most part, we live in relatively low density areas.... and we are spoiled about getting around on out own schedule.

Here's one way to curb consumption. It's not a long term solution, but it would cause us to cut our consumption. Give each licensed driver an annual gasoline credit of 1000 gallons, for which they pay current taxes. Once they go purchase 1000 gallons, charge additional taxes, on a rising scale. Set up a different arrangement for commercial vehicles, based on use. Salesmen with lots of samples, like clothing reps, get more additional gallons than someone with very little. Set up a fair system for everyone from insurance salesman to trucker. Hey Amazon, Is this right wing enough for you?

I wonder how much vegetable oil would cost if we all needed it to fuel our cars. Currently, the ethanol equivalent of 1 gallon of unleaded gas costs about $4.50. I paid $2.17/gallon, yesterday.

Amazon, I don't think anyone can honestly defend the self-serving practices of the Republicans in that article. Still, the article looks fairly biased considering it attacks Tancredo and that "church lady" (I forget her name), while excluding people like Mollohan.

I guess the constant posts about supporting right wing positions here since you signed up.. MIGHT just have led me to believe you were.... Challenging left wing positions and assertions isn't the same as supporting right wing positions. The world is pretty gray.

I don't know of a single time the Dems blocked spending bills. Perhaps you could CITE some examples. The Dems seemed pretty effective in holding up judicial nominations. Is there any reason they couldn't do the same with spending bills?

Great way to support a GOLD STAR mother....just because she does not agree with your NEO-CON PNAC view of the world...it seems the right does just about anythign to run her down..... Sorry about cooking one of your sacred cows. I was just using the same kind of tacit endorsement you employed. Why do you think I'm a NEO-CON? I've opposed the idea of invading Iraq since February 2003.

How many times (since Jan. '01) have the Dems filibustered spending bills?

http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350 Dayum - this must mean Cindy Sheehan supports the Klan. From what I've heard, she's a big fan of porn chat rooms.

Perhaps you can show where Tancredo has had anything to do with the KKK. Just because they like what he's doing, it doesn't mean it's a two way street. David Duke wrote a column titled "Why Cindy Sheehan is right." What's that say about her?

It is pretty subtle. Tancredo made it because he opposes our accomodating, subsidizing nature of illegal aliens, but Allan Mollohan gets a pass.

Hopefully, they are not the same people Jimmy Carter consulted with.