Croc

Plastic surgery.

So charmingly frivolous. Very Great Gatsby of them.

You guys do know this song has been out since the Fall of 2004, right?

But he isn't refuting it...he's using the opportunity to highlight the "mock outrage" campaign tactic.

I asked you that question to test your veracity. I don't really appreciate being lied to, so you'll have to continue your end of the debate with someone else.

Some interesting articles: Palin Received Per Diem at Wasilla Home Wydon Challenges Order Authorizing Export of Alaskan Natural Gas Businessweek: Obama vs. McCain: Taxing and Spending

I love K-Town. I can't read a damn thing, but it just adds a totally different flavor to the area.

FALSE FALSE FALSE!! America has no official language, hence this debate even existing. Question: when you go to New York or Chicago and go to Chinatown, does it piss you off that all the signs are in Chinese? Me? I love it...gives the places character.

Some Op/Ed I found online...very interesting: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginal...ibertarian.html

Exactly. Anyone who has had a cat knows this: the funniest face a cat can make is when they do something embarrassing in front of you.

You came to this conclusion watching C-Span and forming your own opinions?

Oh stuff it. For all the crap on the internet, there is plenty of easily-accessible legitimate information. Wikipedia is a great source for compiling information, and when the wiki entry cites its sources, THOSE sources can be used to trot out arguments. Those can then be debated legitimately. Hell, even using $h! sources in a thread like this isn't even a problem, because citing a $h! source would lead several posters to check up on it and promptly debunk it if it is not legitimate. But generally credible journalism, like most newspapers, is easily accessed on the net.

False. The issue is offshore drilling, NOT drilling on domestic land that the oil companies already have leases for. The ban on offshore drilling was STARTED by Reagan, and has been renewed all along, through both Republican and Democratic leadership. The oil companies already have a LOT of domestic land for which they hold the leases that they ARE CHOOSING NOT TO DRILL ON. How would allowing them to drill offshore--where the environmental concerns are much greater, and the cost and technology involved for extracting such oil is already MUCH MORE expensive than the domestic land for which they are not drilling--help any? From even a business perspective it makes much more sense for them to do the cheaper drilling NOW on DOMESTIC LAND instead of inject millions or billions into offshore drilling operations. They may be able to desecrate the offshore environment when the ban expires this October, but they aren't going to start drilling for years at the earliest, and why should they when they've been choosing not to drill on land they already can--and IMO SHOULD--be drilling on?

Always a cat for me. But the cat must be independent, perfectly able to take care of itself outside if need be, and not be too friendly, but not be too much of a little $h!, either. I desire a cat that does not need me, but rather enjoys my company, if you get the difference. Of the four cats my family has, only one fits that bill. Two are totally helpless and dependent, and the other is an incorrigible asshole.

THANK YOU!!

That's just it, though. Getting your "facts" from the talking heads on the TV is like listening to a bunch of toddlers muse about the ways of the world and use their musings in your own discussions. The mainstream media does not offer "facts" anymore. Pay attention to the next newscast you see--on NBC, since they at least attempt to be "fair and balanced," they will essentially read the D press release followed by the R response, or vice-versa. They do this under the assumption that "the truth is somewhere in the middle." They then "discuss" the press releases in what they call "analysis," but it is rarely any real analysis. No actual fact-checking. "Analysis" means getting a Dem and a Repub, putting them in splitscreen on your TV, and then each just regurgitates their own party's talking points. It's all a bunch of worthless crap. Again, I agree but I ultimately disagree. People on the far right go to church on Sunday. Their sermons are often very political. Someone being spoon-fed politics on a weekly basis has a deeply-ingrained sense of duty come election day, if only to support the party as a whole.

Oh, no I know how much they dislike him...but they still dislike Obama more. Lesser of two evils.

If that's what happens. I still disagree with your line of reasoning because if McCain is really a moderate and were campaigning as such, the far right may not be happy with him, but they'd vote for him out of a "lesser of two evils" point of view. They certainly wouldn't vote for Obama instead. The only other alternative is they wouldn't vote at all, and that isn't very likely. Also, if McCain were more moderate with his campaign, he'd most certainly be courting the Independent and conservative Democrat voters, who would more than outnumber any non-voting, disaffected rightwingers. And it's really all so the citizens of Scottsdale can have their lush gardens and olympic-sized swimming pools in their private golf course gated communities. IMO that goes to Michelle. Cindy looks like a Stepford Barbie, and I find that extremely unattractive.

It's easy to think that when you only respond with statements like these or unsupported emotional tirades without any real engagement with the discussion. If you believe you are informed, you believe in something, and you are on the internet, it really is not hard or time-consuming at all to respond with a real, meaningful, logical, fact-based response. Many of the political issues are issues not because of differences in black-and-white facts, but in different ideologies, values, and interpretations of many different facts. If you want to vote for McCain, I really can't argue with you if your reasoning is that you are a single-issue voter and have looked at the tax plans that show you paying a lot more in taxes because you are in the highest income bracket. There's nothing to argue there; you're looking at your money and voting with it, and you don't really give a $h! about anything else. But if you want to vote for McCain based on the reasoning that "liberals hate America and want to tax the hell out of everybody and spend like there's no tomorrow," then not only is your argument laughable, but it is quite easily disproven as it is a hasty generalization that can easily be disproven by multiple examples of facts. See the difference?

But he's had it all lock, stock and key for months now. What political liability is there for "being himself" like in 2000, now?

If you follow Congress, it's more like the Republicans won't compromise with the Democrats. Look at where all the political noise (fillibusters, protests, etc) has come from--hint, it isn't the D's. As for things like holidays and national __ month, those almost always pass because they satisfy a constituency and there's no downside to approving them. Every post office renamed for a local community activist has to go through a Congressional bill. By the way, local polls indicate the D's will pick up several seats and may even reach the magic number of 60 in the Senate. The RNC has not been posting great numbers for its campaigning congressional candidates. I get my House and Senate data from Daily Kos, and before some of you scream "liberal blog!" I want you all to know that Markos posts EVERY major poll, not just the ones favorable to D's. How do I know? Because he says so, and because many of the bad-for-the-D polls are followed by links to help those "Orange-to-Blue" candidates get more fundraising to improve their numbers.

But here's why I don't believe THIS is the "fake politician" McCain: many Americans so strongly dislike Bush that many Republicans have changed their party affiliation to "Independent" so as not to be associated with the Republican name. Many former Independents are now affiliated as "Democrats."* Given the political climate and Bush's long-term low approval ratings, why would McCain be disingenuous and align himself with the dwindling Republican "base" (who didn't even get excited about the ticket until Palin was announced) instead of using his "real" self (as presented in 2000) to appeal to Independents and conservative Democrats? It just doesn't make political sense. Also, his lack of bipartisanship over the past 8 years convinces me that what we see is what we are going to get. * SOURCE

Thank you. And don't even get me started on his whole bit about wanting to renegotiate the Colorado River water rights. My only read on that is that he knows he probably won't win and is just trying to guarantee re-election into the Senate. Renegotiating the water rights, or even threatening to has pissed off Colorado (even quite a few Republicans were interviewed saying "OVER MY DEAD BODY") and New Mexico. Nevada might be more favorable to McCain because of it, and California may not go QUITE as blue, but even though they'd likely benefit, there are enough enviromental people who would still oppose it out of principle. Thankfully, a lot of Californians aren't incredible self-centered and would continue to bemoan the irresponsibility of continued development in the desert and the havoc that would be wrecked on the environment further east, outside of the state.

Congress can't really do any reforming when Bush has veto power and the Democrats only have a slim majority. Without a fillibuster-proof or veto-proof supermajority, Congress really can't do anything right now.

I can picture her trying to con her into being her companion at one of her famous San Francisco Values* dance parties. *If you don't get the reference, see on Youtube.