Lucky...

Kids under 18, I pretty much agree, but depends on the situation. I'd leave the door open for one that was say, 16 and spouting extremist views. I don't think we've seen that yet, but I wouldn't rule that out for all time. Once a kid comes of age and makes the decision to enter public life by making political statements, they're fair game for anything. I agree, but Chelsea was barely 18, but not in politics, so she was still a kid in all reality and not fair game. Once they hit their 30's for sure they can be brought in I guess and it's not an attack on a child, still unwarranted.

No. You are wrong. It is not nearly as complex as you make it seem. My post is just an example that mocks you and your adding ability. I could have, instead, did what you did, and inappropriately assign irrellevant values and correlations to to somebody hoping to demean them. What I could do is to simply compare your lack of understanding of even the most BASIC matmatical theorys and apllications and say that that is indicitive of all that are situated as far left as you are, but that would only be and understatement and I don't want to be labeled as "Obvious". So you don't want to talk McCain calling Celsea, ugly? Wow, I'm surprised, usually Repubs hang around and talk their hypcrisies all day.....not.

Yea, appologies mean the world: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-883134.html Serial killer Danny Rolling apologized yesterday for stabbing, murdering and mutilating five college students, while asking a judge to spare him the electric chair. They did a bit on appologies on Howard Stern years ago, it basically said fuck appologies. I tend to agree in most cases. People say/do things on purpose, appologize when it goes to hell. Inadvertent acts, auto accidents where no speed or booze was involved, etc - acts/asssetions without malice - are exempt from this.

Then I guess you conveniently ignored McCain's, "ugly as Janet Reno" remark. As for all the time, I guess occassionally is OK in your book. Nice to see you defending the Repub Party agian, you non-republican. Wasn't aware of that remark. Care to post it in it's entirety? Is that the only one you have? You did say the Repubs did it "all the time". The "all the time" is a perception that results from echoes, which are caused by the emptiness of their arguments. 1) Glenn Beck attacks Obama daughter over oil spill worries http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0528/glenn-beck-attacks-malia-oil-spill/ 2) New McCain Ad Attacks Obama Kids http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/new-mccain-ad-attacks-oba_b_121403.html 3) Independent GOP Group's Ad Attacking Obama on Wright Includes Images of Obama's Young Daughters http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/independent-gop.html 4) Hannity's memory lapse: "I don't remember Chelsea Clinton being attacked" (This is Hannity forgetting McCain attacking Chelsea 10 years prior.) http://mediamatters.org/research/200809020015 5) McCain attacked 18 year old Chelsea Clinton in 1998 now says Palin's family & kids are off limits (Now the hypocrisy I was talking about) http://www.opednews.com/articles/McCain-attacked-18-year-ol-by-Steven-Leser-080907-422.html So if that isn't enough to declare the R's as pigs, the family value R's, I guess your tolerance is greater than mine.

Pot, meet kettle. When you address one part of a post and not the rest, you've acquiesceed, meaning you agree via no dispute. So you then agree with: Yes, your own party candidate did: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes has labeled homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and said Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is a sinner. This is the 2nd time I've brought this in, why not respond? Not to mention that Once kids hit adlthood and maybe a couple years, they are no longer kids even the they are that politician's children for life, I think the issue here is about children in childhood, not 35 yo adults who happen to have politicians as parents. Trouble with the little numbers, huh? If the last time you "brought this in" was the 2nd time . . . this would be - Say it with me . . the Thhhhh i rrrrrr d time. Third, come on you can do it. Thhhhhh errrrr d. Would you like to address the vile nature of the Republcan Party, the brilliant electorate that nominated McCain, who would make a comment about a girl, just barely 18 and call her ugly to a nation knowing it would be in the daily press? Or just look for grammatical errors, syntax or whether this is the 2nd or 3rd time I brought an issue in. BTW, this was the 2nd time I brought this up with Airdvr; it makes comprehension so much easier if you look at who I was I was responding to. Regardless, your post exemplifies an entire ideology that says, 'fuck em, kids and fair game, fuck the elderly - if they had planned better we wouldn't be giving them SS.' Why not come out like Mary Cheney, we know the R Party is all about exclusion, hate, anger, etc....just look at who you nominated in 08, he's a fair representative of the electorate.

Pot, meet kettle. When you address one part of a post and not the rest, you've acquiesceed, meaning you agree via no dispute. So you then agree with: Yes, your own party candidate did: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes has labeled homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and said Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is a sinner. This is the 2nd time I've brought this in, why not respond? Not to mention that Once kids hit adlthood and maybe a couple years, they are no longer kids even the they are that politician's children for life, I think the issue here is about children in childhood, not 35 yo adults who happen to have politicians as parents.

Then I guess you conveniently ignored McCain's, "ugly as Janet Reno" remark. As for all the time, I guess occassionally is OK in your book. Nice to see you defending the Repub Party agian, you non-republican. Wasn't aware of that remark. Care to post it in it's entirety? Is that the only one you have? You did say the Repubs did it "all the time". So a murderer who just did it occassionally is mitigated? Eggregious acts can happen every couple years and it's constantly. Nice to focus on the frequency rather than the act. Also, nice to see you defending your party. As for the McCain assertion, you want a transcript so you can put it in context? Are you really here with us? I mean really, how can that direct quote be taken in some other light if it were in a different context? "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_McCain Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno. GOP fund-raiser, Washington D.C., June 1998 [1][2][3]

Like nobody ever took shots at Bush and Cheny's kids? It's wrong no matter who does it. Yes, your own party candidate did: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes has labeled homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and said Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is a sinner. This is the 2nd time I've brought this in, why not respond? Republicans are so full of hate and control that they even turn on themselves at times. Not to mention that Once kids hit adlthood and maybe a couple years, they are no longer kids even the they are that politician's children for life, I think the issue here is about children in childhood, not 35 yo adults who happen to have politicians as parents.

People who take vicious shots at politician's kids are turds and cowards. Calling adults this under these circumstances is appropriate, but I appreciate your strawman as well; it was anticipated. Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and many others are unofficial fixtures and spokespeople of the Repub Party. Steele is dwarfed by them, no one cares what he has to say, these pundits are praised by the Republican electorate all the time. And McCain, last I checked, was a fixture too.

Then I guess you conveniently ignored McCain's, "ugly as Janet Reno" remark. As for all the time, I guess occassionally is OK in your book. Nice to see you defending the Repub Party agian, you non-republican.

Like nobody ever took shots at Bush and Cheny's kids? It's wrong no matter who does it. I did a quick search and didn't see any Dem pundits or politicians doing so. Provide some. Furthermore, Jenna and Barbara were underage drinking and allegedly smoking dope. Wasn't one of them arrested/cited for fake ID to get booze? Yes they were http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/31/usa.michaelellison What did Chelsea or Obama's kids do? NOTHING. It's justifyable to report a crime such as this, vesus your hero, the so-called American hero saying about Chelsea Clinton: http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." What makes this even more pathetic is the family values BS. See, when ya hang this rhetoric on your nametag, you just raised the bar several hundred feet, us immoral libs can do what we want and we haven't crossed any of our own standards; this is teh hypoicrisy to which we refer and you guys just can't grasp. DROP THE PSEUDO FAMILY VALUES BS; NO ONE EVER BOUGHT IT. So the conclusion is that not only are the family values losers just pathetic, but when it comes to material fact, Chelsea Clinton is allegedly ugly per the RW and the Bush daughters are underage drinkers, a crime a poor behavior. So now the Obama kids are fair game, I just didn't find the left pundits/politicians taking shots at the Bush kids, perhaps there were, but never as cruel as from the party of family values. EDITED TO ADD: Shots at Cheney's kids came from teh right as she's a lesbian.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/glenn-beck-apologizes-for-making-fun-of-barack-obamas-daughter-malia/19496426?ncid=webmaildl1 They just can't help themselves, even if the target is an 11 yo girl. These self-appointed tough guys are really cowards. This isn't the first time the right has taken shots at Dem president's kids, the turds took shots at the Clinton's kid Chelsea all the time.

So how exactly does the war in Iraq keep America safe and free? Because we're like Domino's; we deliver. They don't have to come here to kill Americans and the RW has military troops as non-people.

Same bullshit from you! Your rhetoric is worse than the 24 hr news channels. Lucky just to let you know ... 7 months in the market is not that long at all. You make it sound like I said it could happen and a couple yrs later it moved down. 7 months and it gave up a ton of what it had climbed. The economy and market is a house of cards. Your boy is adding to the problems just like W did. 7 months isn't long when you make an open-ended projection. All you have to do is wait and EVENTUALLY you will be right. I love it when guys like you, I believe it was you who said the market is just fluctuating and then posted a daily chart of the DJIA, now you say 7 months isn't long; any argument becomes relevant when you can transpose long for short and short for long . As for same BS, here's some more same BS: +284 pts today. Boom baby, bad news for those who want to see America fail, that's you, Stanley. So that oh, so temp dip >>>>>>>>> Next time the market proves my point again ... It didn't, your point was made last Oct and the market is currently above what it was the entire month of Oct. Try a new guess. >>>>>>>> Unemployment is at an all time low.... Why do you feel the need to misquote me? Is it that hard to be happy the market and the economy is improving? Don't worry, the idiots will elect another Repuke and the crashing will begin. But then you want the market to do well, huh? You base your desire for success upon the party that will get the credit/blame.

I agree with you, slavery was a good thing

WOW, FDR saved the nation from the Great Republican Depression, Lincoln saved the country from being forever severed and for ending a massive attrocity of human slavery and you're offened. WOW. What would you have done to end slavery and secession.

SO what if they are/aren't? You can believe who/want you want or start your own media org.

Well, Wilson DID urge passing of the Sedition Act of 1918. That was the law that banned Americans from using disloyal or abusive language about the government during a time of war. Plenty of American citizens, the most famous of whch was Eugene Debs, were tossed into the clink for protesting the war. While we have talk by government officials about the dangers of speaking out against the war, I think it's instructive to look at past history. Neither Bush nor Cheney seem to suggest passing a law against protesting it. I think it indicates that we are still moving forward... So now GWB / Cheney are progressives? WOW. Whatever sedition was present then, it was typical in that we were 40 years from the abolition of black/white restrooms, etc. GWB/Cheney were grossly regressive. Love how the so-called non-Repubs poke their head that way every now and then.

True, but didn't the Civil War trump that by a long shot?

How did the New Deal subvert states? It was the gov supplementing their position, but how did it displace the power of the individual states? Sure, we should let the oil companies collude so that you can be assured there will be no fascism. It's only fascusm when the gov benefits; how is the giv benefitting when they control gas, electricity, the banks, etc? You call monopolization and corporate control a fair economic system, I call that neo-fascism / corporatism. Japanese-American internment is an example of Nationalsim???? That's more like fear-mongering ignorance. It's not Nationalsim: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationalism 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. 3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. Make an argument. You think basic, small examples of Socialism are fascism when that is what fascism is at all. Neo-fascism, which is what we have now, totalitarianism is left to places like N Korea, is full of corporatism, problem is that you think that's a good thing when corporations can subvert the people, you call it free trade. As for your hate of FDR freeing the people from the corrpution of Harding, Coolidge and early-on Hoover, 12 years (or 11+) of shoving everything to the rich ended up in great wealth disparities, record low taxes (altho FR came close) since WWI and of course, the banks and market crashing. FDR was teh people saying they had enough of Republican politics. Laugher is that the R's just became AFU after a run of 52 years from 1860 to 1912 where the R's held 44 years of the WH. This was the R's tirning ot shit after saving the country in 1860. So the point is, FDR, the New Deal and all that was a product of the corrupt right. Finally, if you knew history well, you'd know it was Hoover who enacted the biggest income tax increase in US history: 25% to 63% - 260% incr in June 1932. The New Deal was more about distributing it more than raising taxes, altho there were tax increases in the New Deal(s), they were puny by comparison to Hoover's. Maybe you read the Cato Institute too much, they also claim FDR tripled taxes.

Or the dissementaion of that centralized power to majot corporations; Neo-fascism. Onyl if it's for the gov's own benefit. Gov control for the benefit of the masses, true benefit is called Socialism. Treu. True, as with Reagan blacklisting hundreds of Hollywood actors. Reagan was in fascism training right after he chickened out of WWII and the war ended. At the same time, we need a better distribution of wealth, one that allows for class mobility which has all but gone away. Is going to war in a foreign land for the so-called good of others a sign of fascism? Isn't that more like Imperialism? Fascism is more intra, Imperialism more inter. Quite obviously there were 2 main steps toward the fascism we have today: 1) The 1886 Railway decision where a corporation is a person. 2) Jan 20, 1981. The debt was stable in a crappy economy, the USSR was engaged in Afghanistan with a military that didn't have the ability to reach out and touch, Fascist Ronnie deficit spent us into a trippling of the debt under the fear/guise of "the Commies are coming," FR killed unions, all in the name of Nationalism.

Keep reading "everything else the government does" Stop playing semantics. Let me rephrase.... everything the government wastes money on....] OK, but you actually wrote "Or just piss it away on everything else the Govt. does which far exceeds the money spent on the war". You haven't shown that the waste you cited exceeded the cost of the war Bush waged under false pretenses. Far from it. Yes I did if you read the link..... that same string over and over... you cannot help it can you. Anyway, the point is its all waste to me. I think you misunderestimate the cost of Bush's war. When all is added up, including continuing healthcare for injured servicemen, it is well over $1 Trillion. Right, what you define as appropriate spending is not waste, what others want is waste; we get you. Oh, how much? Not counting Iraq/AFG spending we match teh world, so what do ya think, we cut it in half? Or 10% and cut all social programs? And you feel Iraq/AFG need to happen, so you are for war, right? Come on out and take a stance for once. Who provided BS intek to congress and pushed for war making it an unpatriotic move to vote againstg it? Who kept pushing for more war money? And most of teh debt is directly atrributable to Reagan and GWB, indirectly virtually all of it. http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue Math not your strong suit? Or is it geometry? Should be easy to see that once again you're wrong. Yes, tax cuts and kill all social programs. Like I told you 7 months ago with your genius prediction that the market was oversold and would crash, IF YA HANG AROUND LONG ENOUGH, IT WILL HAPPEN. Sports touts do it to, clammer about a result and eventually it happens and they claim genius. Even after this Europe-initiated mini crash, the market, GDP, unemp is still better than under your hero - A LOT FUCKING BETTER. AKA cherry picked and avoided the tough stuff. So you agree with Obama COMPLETELY then? That's his take too. He inherited a balanced budget and a surplus, left teh worst economy since the Great Depression; why can't yopu admit thta? It took > 10 years to unfuck the GD, yet if Obama doesn't fix it in 2 weeks he's the devil. Most of the cause now is not due to spending, it's due to hammered receipts. Unlike you, I will back that: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue See and as of the start of 09 to 2010 spending is shaded off and revs are up from massively down. Look at that fucking mess, either we raise taxes as Hoover did (not a bad idea) or we deficit spend. Or as you want, just let it fix itself. Since you guys whine about taxes, even tho they are damn near as low as they were in teh 1920's leading to the Great Depression, Obama won't touch that, so then we deficit spend. Ya can't have it all, higher taxes, deficit spend, cut the militayr in half; you pick. Or your choice, throw granny out in the street. What special programs? The militayr as you like? Sure he is. What special program? The stimulus? History not a strong point? Look what Hoover did - nothing - and it devastated us. 2.5 years later the biggest ever income tax in history; 25% to 63%. I haven't gone anywhere, you ran and declined your own words, then 7 months later European trouble made you think teh US market was weak as it respoonded by losing what, 1100 points? And some of that was probably due to the error leading to shaky confidence. The market still is strong and I am very happy with its performance while you glaot it is falling. Oh, and congratulations, even though you had to wait 7 months for a small dip, your dream of the US market falling is coming ot fruition you real American you. Now go get them shorts and hope for more American loss. Same bullshit from you! Your rhetoric is worse than the 24 hr news channels. Lucky just to let you know ... 7 months in the market is not that long at all. You make it sound like I said it could happen and a couple yrs later it moved down. 7 months and it gave up a ton of what it had climbed. The economy and market is a house of cards. Your boy is adding to the problems just like W did. 7 months isn't long when you make an open-ended projection. All you have to do is wait and EVENTUALLY you will be right. I love it when guys like you, I believe it was you who said the market is just fluctuating and then posted a daily chart of the DJIA, now you say 7 months isn't long; any argument becomes relevant when you can transpose long for short and short for long . As for same BS, here's some more same BS: +284 pts today. Boom baby, bad news for those who want to see America fail, that's you, Stanley. So that oh, so temp dip

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-plunges-at-1930s-pace-as-Obama-eyes-fresh-stimulus.html Yea, the idiot Americans who feel this was a slight dip aren't willing to face that this was the exact entry into the GD as it was in 1929 with a few extras: - Banks crashing - unemployment sppoling; 3.4% in teh year preceeding Obama's term. - GDP tanking for several consecutive Q's. And hell, we had hyperinflation leading up to it, I don't think they had that then. And other than people losing their houses, the mortgage market didn't cause the crash, I'm sure after wonderful Hoover did nothing it then became an issue. So in many ways, this was more dynamically a mess than it was then.

Keep reading "everything else the government does" Stop playing semantics. Let me rephrase.... everything the government wastes money on....] OK, but you actually wrote "Or just piss it away on everything else the Govt. does which far exceeds the money spent on the war". You haven't shown that the waste you cited exceeded the cost of the war Bush waged under false pretenses. Far from it. Yes I did if you read the link..... that same string over and over... you cannot help it can you. Anyway, the point is its all waste to me. I think you misunderestimate the cost of Bush's war. When all is added up, including continuing healthcare for injured servicemen, it is well over $1 Trillion. Right, what you define as appropriate spending is not waste, what others want is waste; we get you. Oh, how much? Not counting Iraq/AFG spending we match teh world, so what do ya think, we cut it in half? Or 10% and cut all social programs? And you feel Iraq/AFG need to happen, so you are for war, right? Come on out and take a stance for once. Who provided BS intek to congress and pushed for war making it an unpatriotic move to vote againstg it? Who kept pushing for more war money? And most of teh debt is directly atrributable to Reagan and GWB, indirectly virtually all of it. http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue Math not your strong suit? Or is it geometry? Should be easy to see that once again you're wrong. Yes, tax cuts and kill all social programs. Like I told you 7 months ago with your genius prediction that the market was oversold and would crash, IF YA HANG AROUND LONG ENOUGH, IT WILL HAPPEN. Sports touts do it to, clammer about a result and eventually it happens and they claim genius. Even after this Europe-initiated mini crash, the market, GDP, unemp is still better than under your hero - A LOT FUCKING BETTER. AKA cherry picked and avoided the tough stuff. So you agree with Obama COMPLETELY then? That's his take too. He inherited a balanced budget and a surplus, left teh worst economy since the Great Depression; why can't yopu admit thta? It took > 10 years to unfuck the GD, yet if Obama doesn't fix it in 2 weeks he's the devil. Most of the cause now is not due to spending, it's due to hammered receipts. Unlike you, I will back that: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue See and as of the start of 09 to 2010 spending is shaded off and revs are up from massively down. Look at that fucking mess, either we raise taxes as Hoover did (not a bad idea) or we deficit spend. Or as you want, just let it fix itself. Since you guys whine about taxes, even tho they are damn near as low as they were in teh 1920's leading to the Great Depression, Obama won't touch that, so then we deficit spend. Ya can't have it all, higher taxes, deficit spend, cut the militayr in half; you pick. Or your choice, throw granny out in the street. What special programs? The militayr as you like? Sure he is. What special program? The stimulus? History not a strong point? Look what Hoover did - nothing - and it devastated us. 2.5 years later the biggest ever income tax in history; 25% to 63%. I haven't gone anywhere, you ran and declined your own words, then 7 months later European trouble made you think teh US market was weak as it respoonded by losing what, 1100 points? And some of that was probably due to the error leading to shaky confidence. The market still is strong and I am very happy with its performance while you glaot it is falling. Oh, and congratulations, even though you had to wait 7 months for a small dip, your dream of the US market falling is coming ot fruition you real American you. Now go get them shorts and hope for more American loss.

Since, as a good conservative, you didn't post any support, I don't know if it's true or not about Wilson. But remember, that was the turning of the Dems from the regressive maggots to eventually the progressives. Racism in the pre-WWI to post WWI era was non-partisan; they all did it. Wilson was a Jesus-loving moralist maggot, so being a racist in that era was par, I don't doubt that you are right with your assertion. Of course the Repiblicans weren't exactly champions for racial minorities either.