Lucky...

Repubs... think you should try to take care of yourself and will help a *little* if you need it. Dems.... think that the Govt should provide you everything and that an individual matters very little. If you work for a living, one is the clear choice. If you want others to give you things.... again a clear choice. You are 30 years out of date as proved by the toilet our economy is swimming in by the TRILLIONS in debt that can be laid right at the feet of the people you worship. Interesting fantasy world you are living in but since the advent of VOO DOO DOO economics that republican party is long gone, replaced by a ne0-cons and a desire to bring theocracy to every part of everyones life. PRAISE THE LORD Look where Siena has ranked Reagan and others from 2002 and again in 2010, it appears teh emphasis is on economy matters. Teddy Roosevelt - from 3 to 2 Hoover - 31 to 36 FDR - 1 to 1 Reagan - 16 to 18 Clinton - 18 to 13 GWB - 18 to 39 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States It seems most / all ranking shifts have to do with the economic impact of today's economy.

Fixd it. And any HC is above the help bar. 1 tiny helkp for the little guy, 3 huge scoops for teh rich and greedy. Show examples. They thinkthe gov should assist and guarantee things like vet care, basic care for citizens, beyond that you call any social svs as cradle-to-grave; extreme missuse of the term. As in ounch a clock? As in be in the margin that has an AGI of 33k year, as in gross 40-50k/yr? Yea, that margin pays 3% of all income tax and benefits from tax and social svs increase, doesn't get helped by tax cuts, my friends. Right, if you want gov protections from the bigs, you can't have Republicans in there slicing DOL rules to shit, as well as appointing employer-friendly (activist as the RWers say) judges and justices.

Is that an endorsement to gay marriage? JKing I agree with your assessment otherwise, but I hate pickles.

To shake the system and hope for positive change for a change. Oh, I thought these were positive changes: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3 http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined I guess you mean massive shifting of wealth to the already very wealthy as a positive change, my bad.

I used to believe that also, not anymore. America now has a one party government with two heads. They play a game for personal power by manipulating us, the voters. This November vote for the Independent/Conservative candidates. Wait, if you say it's the same, then why ask for votes for the Indep / conserv candidates? Can't you see your contradiction there? Repubs - cut taxes (the rich pay most taxes and have most of the money), social programs. Dems - increase taxes and social programs. Is it real hard to see the stark differences?

It's allright....we just gotta start realizing that all politicians are on the same side....duh. it's genius! Theirs? No: Republicans = side of corporations / wealthy Dems = side of the people I guess RWers want to pretend that it's all teh same since their side has fucked things up. And if it was all the same, as your side claims, then you wouldn't be so much for getting your side in. WOW................... Simply WOW who "hires" people to work? Who PAYS for Building factories for people to make a living in? Who pays the bulk of taxes so you can blame the big guy? WOW, I mean, WOW, OMG, WOW. Is that sufficeint or are more wow's needed? Then fall to the rest of the Neo-cons and fail to show me a tax cut that has led to prosperity. I didn't think so, back to your normally sceduled lock-stepped cliches.

Does she talk of the dangers of nationalism? We could learn from that.

It's allright....we just gotta start realizing that all politicians are on the same side....duh. it's genius! Theirs? No: Republicans = side of corporations / wealthy Dems = side of the people I guess RWers want to pretend that it's all teh same since their side has fucked things up. And if it was all the same, as your side claims, then you wouldn't be so much for getting your side in.

And why would those "fascist heroes" be "well at blame", Lucky? It was a straight party vote in Congress - all Dems and "Indies". If you bothered beiong honest for once and posted teh entire thought, you would see that I illustrated the inaction from the RW maggotted politicians led to the Dems forcefeeding this SOB thru, reconcilliation style. Your heroes saying, "WOW, it's AFU" and yet doing nothing led to whatever comes of this HC Bill and all the subsequent adjustments. Bring total garbage like GWB forward as pres creates an extreme opposite reaction. FDR is a great example, 4 presidential wins, never gave up 100EV's. So quit crying about the mess you and yours engineered.

Not that hard to do. Yes, neo-fascist, as the Republican pigs who shovel everything to corporations and let them profit from the missery of Americans. And when claims are filed they will lose and have to act appropriately. See, your lovely status quo, "I have HC, fuck those who don't" will come to an end. Uh huh, and every time the rich get called to act right, they threaten and then realize whining won;t help, so they play ball. So let's look for examples of your trickle-down brilliance: - Great depression, when taxes were finally raised, 2.5 years after Black Tuesday, income taxes were raised 260% and guess who did better? Yea, the poor. When Clinton raisd taxes, guess who did better? - When taxes were cut, 1925, 1980's, guesswho did worse? Yea, the poor. So keep trying to shovel your unsubstantiated crap out here, we're buying all of it. BTW, I'll ask the same question I asked all Reaganite drones: Can you show me a major fed tax cut that led to overall economic improvement? That should bring in the crickets.

It has to be a tax to be legal. Yea, Obama lied. The only people that didn't know it were the "Democratic sheeple" who blindly follow him of the cliff like the lemmings they are. The funny part is the now corrupt Department of Justice's findings on the matter. Is anyone surprised they found in favor of Obamacare? The joke continues. This is all old news. The only real news is that the New York Times is reporting on it. It goes to show how far Obama is dropping in the poles. I don't care to delve into the paranoia that this thread is, but when you run an exclusive mess of a system, have a cance to change it as youw atch it fail at the profits of the inc corps, then youget what you get. Whatever thsi HC Law turns out to be, your fascist heroes are well at blame, wearing blinders, saying it all looks good.

Well, the Polanski issue has been ongoing since 77; no problem revisting that one. We get it, it's ok to pardon Nazi fascist corporate pigs and GWB cronies (he had his sentence absolved), just not liberal Hollywood types. DUDE, WE GET YA, THIS IS A POLITICAL STATEMENT DISGIUSED AS A CHILD PROTECTION ISSUE - YOU KEEP MAKING THAT MORE AND MORE CLEAR. Are you really trying to equate these two? Steinbrenner makes some illegal campaign contributions and is fined for it. He pays his fine and completes his suspension from baseball. On the other side, we have forcible drugging and rape of a 13 year old, followed by fleeing the country. If you think these are on par, stay the fuck away from any of my friends and their children. But I hope, and find it far more likely, that it is you that is trying to make political statements due to uncontrollable bias. Maybe you'll bring Charles Manson into it next. Conceptually these 3 incidents are related. I say 3 incidents because you didn't want to include the outting of a federal agent, you real American, you. Is it worse to mollest a 13-yo gorl or out a federal agent? I can see grave damage in each. The "convicted" part of Billy Martin's famous 1978 "liar and convicted" comment referred to Steinbrenner's connection to Richard Nixon: in 1974 Steinbrenner pleaded guilty to making illegal contributions to Nixon's re-election campaign, and to a felony charge of obstruction of justice. He was personally fined $15,000 and his company was assessed an additional $20,000. On November 27, Commissioner Bowie Kuhn suspended him for two years, but later reduced it to fifteen months. Ronald Reagan pardoned Steinbrenner in January 1989, one of the final acts of his presidency. Steinbrenner is a dirty POS, tied to Nixon. Don't forget felony obstruction of justice, or does that ruin your awesome point? It is you who refuses to even condemn Steinbrenner for all of his many dirty deeds, Libby for his outting of a fed agent, convicted of multi counts of obstruction and perjury; so it is you making the political statement.

Are you saying Polanski should be pardoned for his crime (having sex with a kid) because others were pardoned theirs? That's the drift I get from your post. A simple answer, yes or no, would be great. Thanks. It was more of an editorial/observation about this being a political matter, not a criminal matter in the eyes of posters here. All should pay for their crimes, but if the system fucks up, either a new trial or quashing of charges need to be ordered. This is about due process.

Now watch WS rebel by crashing the market, fuckin babies usually do.

It hadn't even occurred for me to think about an event from the 80s. Did his death this week suddenly make this a relevant topic? Well, the Polanski issue has been ongoing since 77; no problem revisting that one. We get it, it's ok to pardon Nazi fascist corporate pigs and GWB cronies (he had his sentence absolved), just not liberal Hollywood types. DUDE, WE GET YA, THIS IS A POLITICAL STATEMENT DISGIUSED AS A CHILD PROTECTION ISSUE - YOU KEEP MAKING THAT MORE AND MORE CLEAR.

Sieg heil my Nazi countryman http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lies.com/blog/archives/bush_sieg_heil.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/09/18/funny-sieg-heil-bush-photo/&h=318&w=409&sz=52&tbnid=6wLRbCXwWZBHDM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsieg%2Bheil&hl=en&usg=__cEV6NyJ4jkPGhMT1EqF0pS9sFhg=&sa=X&ei=EltATOTPLoy8sQPquNmFDQ&ved=0CCwQ9QEwBA

Thanks. Hey, *I'M* not the one that posted that wall'o'text, tyvm!! I think it (hogging bandwidth) was sarcasm. Hard to see that I guess

Just forced to resign. Maybe not even that, he probably laid his resignation on Obamas table, pleased to do it. And I don't think ANY of his troops think of the General as "disgraced"............ *** The one event that will define his career is missing from his resume? Yet Obama's citizenship is questioned?*** I give up trying to fix this on an I-phone I must not have been clear, I'm with you on this one. I must not have been clear, I'm with you on this. You guys crack me up. No, you guys crack me up. Won't wear a flag pin on teh lapel, beating this birther issue to death, semantic inanity vs the Republican throwing us into debt and hammering most aspects of the economy and all you can still clammer is birther BS? Anyone care that a general broke rank and verbally assaulted the CIC? I bet if a junior officer/enlistee looked cross-eyed at the good general he would have their ass, yet he feels insubbordination is ok. Can you guys be more hypocritical? You don't have to like the guy wearing the rank who is above you but you MUST respect the uniform and rank attached WITHOUT QUESTION. Start abiding by your own rules w/o selectively deciding which to administer and which to avoid. Your format is AFU bro, hard to follow. Guess you're agreeing.

Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant. In this case it was, I believe, as Polanski was known. I realize knowing someone publicoy isn't the same as knowing them psychiatrically, but the judge was looking for a reason to senten c him longer when he gave the inferrence that it would be wrapped up. You're not correct. A pre-sentence investigation is SOP in almost all felony cases, and a psych eval is SOP in most PSIs involving a sex crime - again, especially an adult-on-juvenile one. The fact that Polanski was well known, or for that matter most any other factor, would not trump this SOP. I learned the the nuts & bolts of how a PSI is prepared in 1978; and I've dealt with ... well, quite a few of them in the 32 years since then. I really am quite certain about this. A 42-day inpatient eval? Come on, it's usually a session or 2.

That approach is just as silly as when the anti gays ask why we don't advocate for polygamy or bestiality. So how long after 92 did you finally admit to yourself that Perot was fucking nuts? Clinton was a slam dunk choice in that election. So you won't be telling us what you think of fascist Ronnie pardoning Steinbrenner? Yea, it's fun to run-n-hide, huh? I was in transition politically, I always voted Dem since 80, then for some reason blamed the recession on them and would have voted for GHWB, but Perot seemed like a good change from 2-party. I voted for Dole in 96 and then entered college. A year later realized that most of the BS since teh GD has come from the Republican Party and hacen't voted R since. I voted all R in 94 with the R takeover of congress. So. list all the D's you've voted for, or I guess we can say you defined yourself earlier.

I answered that question before, but since it didn't meet your preconceived definitions, you blanked it out. But good to see the reminder that you're a Perot voter. Did you do it twice? Nope, just 92. So, list all the Dems you've voted for, or do you fit the definition you posted? I didn't see your answer, shoot it again; we'll try not to let teh other conservatives see you try to slam the GOP criminals.

There are statutes for most crimes except murder/conspiracy. So yes, a person can hide out in the same jurisdiction unless there is a trial in absetia of course. Doesn't apply here - the statute of limitations is to the filing of charges. > No he won't, he's as free as a bird. So long as the bird doesn't leave French or $wiss soil. Hence the reason I stated if he was tried in absentia - pretty clear. Hey, France or Switzerland with millions is a prison I could endure.

Not weird at all. A psych eval is not an uncommon part of a post-plea/verdict, pre-sentence investigation in a sex crime, especially with a juvenile complainant. In this case it was, I believe, as Polanski was known. I realize knowing someone publicoy isn't the same as knowing them psychiatrically, but the judge was looking for a reason to senten c him longer when he gave the inferrence that it would be wrapped up.

I'm amazed that anyone can chastise someone for doing something wrong 30 years ago. But I guess there are those here that never did anything wrong and are first to judge others. Nice to know there are still perfect human beings out there. There are statutes for most crimes except murder/conspiracy. So yes, a person can hide out in the same jurisdiction unless there is a trial in absetia of course. Unless you are Steinbrenner, Libby, a cop who accidentally murders innocnent people and is real, real sorry, etc. The judge misled, disregarded prosecutor's wishes and psych eval, which was weird to order anyway.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong: Aren't most plea deals made with the guilty plea an exchange for reduction of charges (either in total number or degree of severity)? And often with a recommendation of lower sentence from the prosecutor? Polanski got six charges reduced to one (basically statutory rape). Although the prosecutor recommended no jail or prison time, the judge was still free to impose whatever sentence he saw fit. The deal wasn't no prison time. The deal was six charges down to one. I guess the judge is free to impose whatever he wants, but to go against a plea deal the prosecutor made stinks. You either go with the program or get the hell out. It is the judge that presides over the courtroom, not the prosecutor...and I'm still amazed that you're making excuses for Polanski. There's no "supposedly"...even Polanski isn't saying that... And I'm not surprised you're avoiding the pig we call Reagan pardoning the elitist pig we called Steinbrenner. Or shall we talk GWB and Libby? I see, some guys shoudl serve time, some skate based upon political affiliation.