Lucky...

Isn't it amazing when people grab a morsel of info and don't check its contemporary status?

Yes, that is now the GOP, they are a pesky little minority, but we love em anyway

Not a decision, just an opinion piece printed in Canada. Amazing how the neo-cons usually tell Canada to fuck themselves, now they count

As they should be.

Yea, what a joke, 1099's have been here as long as I can recall. Anyone working at most DZ's has gotten them forever. Is this the best you can do?

Absolutely! It sounds JUST LIKE the Dems are talking, hoping that the economy will fail. I fail to see the Dem celebration under GWB. Maybe I told you so's, but not, "YES, WE WON."

Perfect sense, just like when McCain's advisor called all the economically misserable people, "whiners."

Yea, think of the workforce willing to work for 1/2 what they command in a Democrats market.

I come for the free cookies and milk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_republicans_constitutional_amendments The very same wave the US Const actually dislike many parts of it. This maggot is a prime example.

WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked government rules expanding stem cell research, a blow to the Obama administration that could stall potentially lifesaving research. Hell, a blow to mant conservatives like Mrs Reagan. Only the nuttiest variety are for this judge's ruling. Why is it eveyr time the Obama administration fucks up, rather than own it, the libs point out a Republican that was a fuck up too? Two wrongs make a right? as for the OP, that is fucked up......Very fucked up....no telling how many lives that judge will cost! Einstein, you should get a clue and actually read the article: The Obama administration expanded the number of stem cell lines created with private money that federally funded scientists could research, up from the 21 that President George W. Bush had allowed to 75 so far. Just because it's a blow to the Obama Admin, that doesn't mean it's his doing or his fault. Federal law explicitly forbids use of taxpayer dollars to destroy a human embryo — and culling stem cells from an embryo does destroy the embryo. However, once created, these batches of stem cells, or lines, can reproduce indefinitely in lab dishes. And who passed/signed that law? Your hero, your twin, GWB. Rememebr the start of the 8 illustrious years, he went on TV and blathered out how this was a good idea to cut gov funding for stem cell research? Again, fucking read and research and then understand what you're talking about. A maggot appointed by a maggot: what a surprise - he is from Texas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_C._Lamberth He was nominated to the federal bench on March 19, 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, and confirmed by the United States Senate on November 13, 1987[url]

WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked government rules expanding stem cell research, a blow to the Obama administration that could stall potentially lifesaving research. Hell, a blow to mant conservatives like Mrs Reagan. Only the nuttiest variety are for this judge's ruling.

Shift key here, were there caps used? I scrolled back and didn't see it, it really isn't important enough to research. Trust me, you struck no nerve, if I used caps it was to draw emphasis to a point. I realize the opposite is true, I struck a nerve and you want to flip it - good luck. Isit an insult? Altho the definition changes, the current one describes Reagan, your hero. It means a Dem truned Republican, cutting taxes, raising spending. I think it has teeth, where as neo-Dem never would because the Republican Party advertises solid, staunch beliefs and when they change it opposes their advertised protocol. No, I think you don't understand it. Tell me, how little do you feel when you see human sufferring? Right, claim you feel much then elect garbage who cuts social benefits; get it? I'm using it in the context of lack of conscience; its defined meaning. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath Now show me your definition. Or is it the same, you just feel a lot of conscience for the very rich.

It wasn't a joke, it was a news item, and I said nothing at all funny about it. It wasn't even about an active skydiver as far as I know, but rather about a despondent rock singer in Europe who leaped from an antennae. Ladies and gentlemen, I would provide the thread reference so you can see for yourself how badly jakee has misrepresented my actions, but for some reason, I'm sure unrelated to my posting, that thread has been removed from public sight. I'm shocked at how far you have sunk here, jakee. It's pathetic. If you can't counter my arguments with real facts and logic, you shouldn't go around making up fictional insults. It must have been appropriate if it was removed. And now we know why all yours stay. Because they're appropriate. I don't get your failed inuendo.

It wasn't a joke, it was a news item, and I said nothing at all funny about it. It wasn't even about an active skydiver as far as I know, but rather about a despondent rock singer in Europe who leaped from an antennae. Ladies and gentlemen, I would provide the thread reference so you can see for yourself how badly jakee has misrepresented my actions, but for some reason, I'm sure unrelated to my posting, that thread has been removed from public sight. I'm shocked at how far you have sunk here, jakee. It's pathetic. If you can't counter my arguments with real facts and logic, you shouldn't go around making up fictional insults. It must have been appropriate if it was removed.

Right, textbook Libertarians share fiscal right views and moral left views. Now, it plays out like this: - Libertarians RW fiscal ideals 90% LW moral ideals 10% Hope that clears it up. I think their nametag can be flipped around to display the other party, this is done for cost savings since they seem to switch so often If you wanna sit there and claim the the RW isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts. If you wanna sit there and claim the the Libertarian Party isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts. They have the same agenda: KILL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CUT TAXES. FRom there they differ a little. That's what I love about you. a calm, non-emotional discussion... oh wait... I can expect more of that from my wife. My mistake. Another neo-con unable to address the issue so he strawman's over to an ad hominem; typical. So where's the emotion? All I'm saying is that righties, Libertarians wan to kill social programs, how is that emotional? Oh, I see, it isn't, but in order to not appear sociopathic you must avoid that argument and move on to me. Typical.

WHat did he say to act conservative? If anything he acted too liberal to get elected. He promised: - Get out of Iraq/AFG soon......he hasn't - Promised HC in a single payer type sense.....he tried but settled for a bastardized version - Promised to raise taxes.....he hasn't So your attempt to make RW the desired version has fallen on its tits again. Liberalism was favored and he has fallen short of his liberal promises, not all his fault, but he has shifted right of his promises.

Right, textbook Libertarians share fiscal right views and moral left views. Now, it plays out like this: - Libertarians RW fiscal ideals 90% LW moral ideals 10% Hope that clears it up. I think their nametag can be flipped around to display the other party, this is done for cost savings since they seem to switch so often If you wanna sit there and claim the the RW isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts. If you wanna sit there and claim the the Libertarian Party isn't generlly concerned about killing social welfare; you're nuts. They have the same agenda: KILL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CUT TAXES. FRom there they differ a little.

AKA got your ass handed to you. On a serious level, it must suck to not be able to express your views w/o feeling embarrassed. I don't mean that in a nasty way either.

In practice, it's really no difference at all. If any, the difference is purely semantic: not what a president is, but what you prefer him NOT to be: anything that is openly and expressly not Christian. OK, I'll own that. It still don't mean squat. Ok. Now what on earth did your "Hitler card" mean? It meant that the use of information and logic does not necessarily mean good leadership. That was ryoder's position statement. HUH???? WTF? You neo-cons crack me up

In practice, it's really no difference at all. If any, the difference is purely semantic: not what a president is, but what you prefer him NOT to be: anything that is openly and expressly not Christian. OK, I'll own that. It still don't mean squat. Sure it does. It means you're one of many who feel that anyone of a religion other than Christianity should not be president. I don't know how far you can go with this line of reasoning. I have my preferences and ONE vote. If my ONE vote meant squat we would have different elected officials. You should go back into obscurity in SC, you don't do the whole political thinmg real well, the tigers are eating you up and I don't mean that in a gay way, just to ensure you don't fall into spasms.

In practice, it's really no difference at all. If any, the difference is purely semantic: not what a president is, but what you prefer him NOT to be: anything that is openly and expressly not Christian. OK, I'll own that. It still don't mean squat. As you were then, you demand a president be Christian and not a dirty faggot, as you would say, or a dirty faggot lover, perhaps. But then you wave the Constitution to-and-fro when it seems opportunisticly desireable. I see we've come full circle.

In practice, it's really no difference at all. If any, the difference is purely semantic: not what a president is, but what you prefer him NOT to be: anything that is openly and expressly not Christian. Haha, I wrote that he was being semantic b4 I saw you wrote it too. Get offa my wavelength.

On target. It is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that counts, not religion. Or the choice to not have one. Of course I'm just being Constitutional, now back to your imposed Christianity. There is no such thing as imposed Christianity according to the Holy Bible. There is only repentance and free will choice. Right, but in application and from you saying a president must be Christian to be considered you are saying that as you want him to rule/preside from the bible, hence impose Christianity down our fucking throats. This concept violates the 1st. Amazing how neo-cons hide the constitution some times, wave it vigorously others. I did not say a president must be Christian. Oh, I see, but you did write: On target. It is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that counts, not religion. So you want a president who has a personal relationship with Jebus, but who is not necessarily a Christian. Now I'm really confused. No, I prefer that he be a professing Christian with the fruit of his behavior to back it up. That is much different from saying, "he must be a Christian." OK, as you'll have it, Mr Semantics.

Riiiiight. Hey do us a favor and list all of the presidents you voted for over the years. I have done this, but see, you won't because we will all be seeing red amidst you claiming not to belong to any party. Riiiight, we get ya. I used to be a member of the Republican Party. Two years ago I resigned and am now No Party Affiliation. Right, so you're an older gentleman with 40 years voting as a Republican, now you're a registered independent voting as a Republican; that clears it up. What caused you to resign, McCain too much a turd for you? Symbolism? But you still vote R down theline, let's be real. And a vote for L is still a vote for R. You don't know who I voted for and it is not any of your business. I resigned because there were too many Republican fags in political prominence. That's been going on for years, why the sudden objection? As for who you voted for, I think we can safely just mark an indellible R all teh way down, Mr non-partisan.