Lucky...

I'm not saying I embrace the guy, or as someone misquoted me, adore him, I'm just saying he has the balls to tell the US they don't have to sell us oil. I hate terrorism, but I also hate Imperialism, so more power to him to run his country the way he wants as long as he's legitimately in control.

How long till they quit calling it the rotten apple?

>>>>>>>>I think you are a little mis informed. Conservatives want to keep the right to thier own money. They want the right to not have to spend it on illegal immigrants When the term, "rights" comes up in conversation, t that refers inalienable US Constitutional rights. These rights are typically: 1st - free speech, religion, assembly 2nd - gun ownership 4th - prot against unreas search/seizure 5th - prot agaist self incrim 6th - right to counsel 8th - prot fro cruel / unusual punishment 14th - due process That is a quick overview of rights, as in protect our rights. What you're saying when you claim the conservatives save the rights to have your money not taken from you is more along the line of you preferring Republican fiscal policy, not some right. So let's explore Republican fiscal policy and them protectin your, "right" to keep your money. We have been a debtor nation since 1840, it increased thru the decades, dropping in the 1920's, during Eisenhower's term and stared to dip at the end of Clinton's term. But it was manageable and increased primarily during wars. So let's examine the start of Reagan's term where it was basically flatline and at 1 trillion. 1981 = 1T 1989 = 3T (increasing at 250B/yr) 1993 = 4T (increasing at 250B/yr) 2001 = 5.5T (230B surplus) NOW = 9.1T and increasing at a large rate. This chart will show you: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm So how does that cost you? For starters, the value of the dollar. 1993 $1 USD = 1.27 Canadian 2001 $1 USD = 1.55 Canadian Now $1 USD = < 1.00 Canadian SO who is protecting your dollar? When we spend 45% of the worlds military budget, probably >60% if you count Congressional war expenditures, that's where your dollar is going, altho it is more pallatable for some to blame the homeless and impoversihed getting a few scraps here and there than it is blame the mega rich. >>>>>>>>>we also like the right to live without being blown up by terrorists. 2 ways to fix that: 1) Guard borders 2) Quit being such Imperialists and doing things like invading countries, threatening countries, etc.

Fascism has been somewhat of a universal name to call others. I heard former US Rep JD Hayworth use the term, "Islamo-fascists," so it works for all. We do know that fascism denounces democratic ideals and denounces organized labor, things that are present here, or used to be present here in the US. >>>>>>>>>I don't see anyone here advocating invading Venezuela. Do you? I kinda go that from your writings, as if that was the next step. We don't own any part of Venezuela, they have no duty to us. >>>>>>>>>Venezuela IS and HAS BEEN a valuable trading partner for the US and many countries in the Americas as well. Instability there WILL affect us sooner or later and it affects friends and people I care about NOW. This is where you continue to infer an endorsement of an invasion. OK, so they are trading partners with us and others, ok. So what, tehy can stop if they wish or expand it. A reasonable person would infer from reading your paragraph that the next step is to interfere militarily. >>>>>>You can feel free to not care about it if you like. Or I can care and disagree with you. I like Chavez for having the balls to step up to Goliath, not many countries still do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>You can also go on to think that Chavez is some kind of "people's hero" if you want. It appears as tho he is, that is the people of Venezuela. ____________________________________________ Remember, as far as oppressive governments go, the US is considered up there. During WWII, there were many disenters of both Japan and Germany, but they had no chance of getting out from under that oppression witin, it took an external force to do so, perhaps another country might free up some of the oppression that we feel, but it won't b Venezuela.

Here's an interesting site: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Do YOU? fas·cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Now, tell me where that DOES NOT apply to Hugo Chavez and what he is moving towards in Venezuela. Really, read just a little. Then compare to how close we REALLY are here in the US. Seriously, no crazy conspiracy crap. How close are we REALLY? Fascism, Mousolini Fascism is pretty much gone by the way of neo-fascism. Neo-fascism is: Neo-fascism is a post-World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. The term neo-fascist may apply to groups that express a specific admiration for Benito Mussolini and fascist Italy. Neo-fascism usually includes nationalism, nativism, anti-communism, and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy. Allegations that a group is neo-fascist may be hotly contested, especially if the term is used as a politic epithet. Some post-World War II regimes have been described as neo-fascist due to their authoritarian nature, and sometimes due to their fascination for fascist ideology and rituals. Latin America's tradition of populism and authoritarian regimes includes the caudillos of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the various military juntas that took power during the Cold War. Most of the juntas were traditional military dictatorships, and some of these regimes provided refuge to former Nazis (such as Adolf Eichmann), and supported neo-fascist movements (e.g. the Argentinian Triple A). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism This is interesting: In several essays, author David Neiwert has explored the rise of what he calls “pseudo-fascism”. Neiwert concedes that “American democracy has not yet reached the genuine stage of crisis required for full-blown fascism to take root” and thus “the current phenomenon cannot properly be labeled ‘fascism’.” He warns: But what is so deeply disturbing about the current state of the conservative movement [in the United States] is that it has otherwise plainly adopted not only many of the cosmetic traits of fascism, its larger architecture — derived from its core impulses — now almost exactly replicates that by which fascists came to power in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and '30s.[6] I can agree with that. Neo-fascism hates organized labor, welfare, etc. I think it's early to say the US is fascist, but the framework is there.

What kind of American are you that doesn't think we should invade every puppet country that won't follow our instructions.... oh yea, small pupput countries; we don't fuck with anything that can sustain a fight.

Uh, no, I don't think he does. Neo-fascism includes large portions of Corporatism, and what he is doing sounds counter to that. OTOH, look in the US for Corporatism.

The guy definitely has to be a Liberal. Everything is always a Govt. Conspiracy and they are always whining about someone trying to take away their rights. Aren't liberals fucked that way, I mean conservatives support the abolition of rights.

Remember, with high rate sof speed, the controls are etremely sensitive and reasctive. Not saying I have clue as to what happened here, but he may have over-inputted the aileron. How many really awesome skydivers make mistakes?

But you're right, the election is a gov process, the media is 1st issue, the gov should intervien and restrict the media.

>>>>>>>>>Primaries are for the parties. The general election is for everyone. Who owns the swing voters?

How do you know? You totally disrgarded Ryoder's point. It could go either way. To worry about the author rather than the issue is, well, and Ad Hominem.

Exactly, but these die-hard R's are seriously worried they may / probably lose the WH and Congress for several terms. And they used to call the D's whiners.....perhaps they take turns being whiners.

Whatcha afraid of, them asking tough questions? If it doesn't change the pool of R voters, what does it matter? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, you're affraid that the answers might chase away some R voters, I get it . What if these guys are registerd D's, but are considering swinging? You know, it's very attractive, I mean, the R's have doen such a good job 5 of the last 7 terms and all.

>>>>>>>>The UK laws on self defence should be closer to those of the US. I dislike the pretense of using "reasonable force". A criminal breaking into my house, is fully awake, knows before hand whether he will fight or flee. As the victim I have no such prior knowledge. It should be legal to use lethal force to defend your home (inside the front door). Not if they're turning and running. If a criminal breaks into your house and is heading toward you, I can't see a US court convicting a resident of anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>With regards to the death penalty I am not so sure that it works as intended due to the complexity of our legal systems. Murder is defined by so many legal shades of grey that it becomes extremely difficult. Only 1st degree murer is eligible, felony murder is the same as 1st. 1st degree murder, as a rule, must include the intentional killing of a person with premedictaion, felony murder is the death of a person while another person is in the act of committing a felony. An example would be a bank heist where in the getaway the driver kills someone. >>>>>>>>Benefits of the death penalty are - Justice, deterant, cheaper than life. Justice - even if an actually guilty person is executed, has justice been served? What is accomplished by killing him in return? Would there be less justice if he spent his natural life in prison? Deterent - Really? Obviously the tyoe of deterrence to which you refer is not specific det, but general det. There is no statistical or other evidence I've read to support that. IOW's, where is there constant statistical evidence that as we execute more people, the murder rate drops? Do you really think people ponder whether it's worth it or not as the contemplate murdering someone? 1st degree murder is an inherently irrational proposition, so how can we assume there is intelligent reasoning? cheaper than life imprisonment - only if life is cheap. We make mistakes now, so how can we expedite the process and expect no mistakes? Not a real element here. >>>>>>>>>>>>The downsides are the inability to appeal if there is a wrongful conviction and from a religous point of view the removal of the ability to be "saved". HUH? CP comes from the lovely bible, it's called Old Testament retribution. Removal of the ability to be saved? WTF? That has no place in the penal system or in government, period. As well, haven't people been "saved" (puke) in prison before? In fact, isn't that wher ethe lion's share of them get saved? Here's some more detractors to CP: - It doesn't allow closure for the families of the deceased, as they are continually reliving this via court dates, media, etc - It costs easily twice or more as much as life imprisonment, esp if the condemned is >40 - It kills innocent people - It has a racial component - It has a class component - Even if a person who is giulty is executed and everything is so-called correct, it depraves society in that the state has killed someone, regardless of correctness. - Could you imagine sitting in the chair, gurney,etc and proclaiming your innocense while all onlookers sayi, "yea, they're all innocent, just ask them." As you fade, you wonder if your kids will be ok, etc.... Someone else is fucking your wife, working your job, living inyour house, driving your car, etc... What is so wonderful about it?

>>>>>>>>>The cheaper than life is a little tongue in cheek. I don't think that it should be part of the equation - although with our current prison levels maybe space could be used as an excuse for CP Death penalty for parking violations, as Steve Martin once said..... >>>>>>>>>>>>No life not meaning life is not a reason for CP - just a reflection on a society that upholds human rights without making people accountable to their human responsibilities. And when we fire up the death machine and it eats a few innocent people in its fury...... then what? Who's teh murderer now; the machine or the geniuses who advocated and built it?

>>>>>>>>I'd volunteer to help make those determinations. We need to make becoming a predator an extremely unattractive option. The way the rules are set up now, only those that would never be a risk for it are detered - if that makes sense. Kind of like the sign in the shower at the health club asking people not to pee in the shower. The bozos that would do that are going to do it anyway. Many of our laws mean little to nothing to criminals because they have no teeth - the laws, not the criminals. Well, it doesn't make sense and you addressed why in your second paragraph. Most don't need deterring, some can't be deterred, so deterrence theory is unrealistic, just utopian. There are small pockets of deterrence and they usually reside with youths. DP is just to appease the sadists and revenge freaks/religious zealots, it really does little if anything to reduce future crime, just pretends to try.

Well I agree with that PM, just not the nutty prophecy. The dollar is tanking, the world hates us and terrorists are, w/o a doubt, plotting. We make us a a target via the garbae we elect, then scratch our heads as to why.

Bahahhaahhaha....yea, I keep maxing out my credit cards, getting limit extensions as the prophetic extensions require.

Oh contrare, wait for the next several terms and enjoy your rejection.

I'll go with liberal. He's unhappy, unemployed, and thinks that Hillary will make his life all better. The guy is a whackjob, we all know the Repubs make evrything great as it is now.

This deserves the Nobel Prize!!! Science begs you to disprove them, religion dares you to. Religion is not only not based on logic, it is often downright illogical. This doesn't mean religion, any of them, are wrong, it just means that the process to believe things that are not scientifically testaable, empiracal, is illogical. But as they say, even a topped clock is right twice a day, so one of these religious dieties might be legitimate.

He, kids are for beating, right? If my wife/GF bears a child, I have the inherent right to beat the shit out of him/her. Let's see, child exhibits bd behavior, beat him, teach him that that is the way to curb bad behavior; bet it out. BRILLIANT

I don't know about evil, but I will put in a vote for nasty and contemptable. I'll see that and raise you a demented and hateful.