whoman69

There is an entertainment bias in the media. Everything is for ratings.

Your posts are generally filled with nothing but name calling, not against anyone specifically on this board, but name calling none the less. You remember your L-I-B-E-R-A-L song? The fact that the personal attacks haven't come sooner is amazing. When you start making arguments based upon facts and not labels, give me a heads up.

Frankly 3rd party candidates are overblown. Occassionally they have an effect on Presidential politics, but for the most part, they do nothing. Frankly until a 3rd party wants to put in the hard work to get a grass roots with candidates elected to state legislatures and the national congress, they are irrelevent, as they should be.

You are missing quite a few terrorist attacks, the first attact on the WTC, the attack at the Altanta Olympics, the sniper attacks in the DC area, numerous attacks on abortion clinics, plus you dismiss attacks on Americans overseas. Some changes have to be made. IMO the Patriot Act went overboard and gave power to the federal government to take away rights for things that have nothing to do with terrorism, and allows a very broad definition of what c

Ya gotta love a socialist Republican.

While certainly the standard of living is much, much lower in these countries, the companies that use these labourers are taking advantage of them. They work long hours for pay that is nowhere near the return the company will get for their work. You may as well allow illegal immigration with illegal low wages to come here. This is the Wal-Mart theory of consumerism, doesn't matter anything about the products as long as they are cheaper. How many ot

I would answer with, its a wasted vote if the others are not a viable alternative. If voting for Bednarik gets him to 5% of the vote then there is no point to vote for Bednarik. Until 3rd parties want to put the work in to even get a local candidate elected, why should they have any voice on a national level. Let's say that a 3rd party candidate were to win the presidency. Without any members of Congress on their side, their administration would be

What does it mean when he says the deficit is going down by 17%. It certainly can't mean that there will acutally be a surplus this year that will drop the deficit. More likely the statement means that it will drop 17% from last year's all time high. That still puts the deficit at nearly $400 billion, so its an empty claim. Its also an empty claim since pork has not been considered in the statement. If the budget as proposed is only 17% lower than

Col you seem to think you have all the answers on the United States fiscal problems and opportunities. I'm here to tell you that you don't have ALL the answers/fixes. There are people who get paid to figure out these things and you ain't it. For all your much vaunted education the people who get paid to do this have a better one.

very Interesting. Did you see who was in dissent? Seems the Liberals on the court are the ones that trashed the 4th amendment, and the conservatives voted to uphold it. A shame Rehnquist did not vote. Given that o'Connor voted against it, I am sure he would have as well. Dr Guy, you need to read tha

If border patrol is put in the hands of the Guard, does that mean that its only illegal immigration one weekend a month and one two week stint a year. Do you realize this would actually cost more money to activate those units and would also disallow them from performing their military duties. They would also need training time. In that time period we would have no border patrol. Its not the job of the states to guard the borders.

We'll be able to win since we'll still be in Iraq, have an even bigger deficit, and rich tie ins to all the programs he gets passed like he did with the environment and prescription reform. Plus we also know your nominee will be Jeb Bush.

I think most people heard what they wanted to hear. A poll taken shortly before the election showed that most Bush supporters still believed that Saddam had ties to 9/11.

Funny how the Republicans are always big on states rights yet they have now taken away power from various state attorneys general to prosecute complaints. Will this also hamper their efforts to control fraudulent businesses. So far this doesn't do any reform except try to move these cases to a less forgiving court.

Anyone heard a health report on John Dean?

After reading this I was interested in what the IRS collects in taxes per year. In FY 03, the IRS collected (before refunds) $1,952,929,000,000. That is a difference of $0.6 Trillion (if I did my math right)! BEFORE REFUNDS Now while income taxes aren't the entire revenue, we already go

The only people who give creedence to kooks controlling the Democratic party are the Republicans, who promote everything that the kooks say so they can label the whole party with their words. Somehow the right has painted Michael Moore to be the sage of the left, while Ann Coulter is nothing more than a sexy funny girl who writes articles that Republicans never read, Rush Limbaugh has a show that noone liste

The Republicans have believed from the days of Hoover and before, that to help the most wealthy trickles down to the least fortunate. The economy seems better, but the poor are where they had begun from. I remember when Carson used a picture of a puppy dog peeing on a tree at the top of a hill to illustrate the theory. More accurate is what they say in the army, shit rolls downhill. Bush's administration is further proof there is no such th

Is it just me or have publishers become a Great Evil in the software industry? Shhhh...its just you. Don't let them hear you.

I agree and disagree. he would not have made it through the primaries, but not because he is dull and boring, but because the kooks have hijacked the party. And that is why I dont fear a democrat in the white house in the forseeable future. As long as you let the kooks pick the nominee (Mondull, Dukaki, Gore, Kerry), you are goin

A President is more than a series of policies. He was also be a leader that inspires people to follow him. Despite being known as the VP candidate in 2004, Lieberman did not even make a run at the Iowa caucus. Why, it wasn't name recognition. It was the fact the man is duller than your grampa's bowling ball. He generated zero excitement in the Gore campaign and even less in his own. He decided to make a stand in NH and it resembled very much the

The first large scale scale invasion of American troops in World War II was in French North Africa. The French had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. So by some people's logic, it must have been "wrong". After 9/11, Iraq became a necessary target in the war on Terror. I always find it amusing when someone claims that Bush wa

The UN is flawed by the article linked was total hyperbole and propoganda. Veiled threats masked with little fact.

Joe Lieberman has about as much chance winning the election as Monica Lewinsky. He is so bland. His campaign would have zero vigor. I voted for Kerry here in Iowa because he seemed the best candidate at that early point. The fact that every other candidate all but gave up after that one victory did a disservice to the party. The next election we need an exciting leader. The election was very close and not the mandate I hear Bush supporters talk a

Any sort of aid we send to these countries probably wouldn't get into the right hands, and if it did the terrorists would take credit for improving the lifestyles.