arch stanton

It passed the Senate. No chance it passes the House. That aside, let's talk tax increases.

The stock market is soaring, corporate profits are through the roof because they cut their costs by limiting their labor cost. They outsource and cut benefits to keep their profitability up. The people you elect with the understanding that they will represent your interests are owned and operated by mega-merged conglomerates of what used to be a somewhat free enterprise system.

So, a) bring back the good jobs with decent pay and benefits, b ) accept a huge tax increase to offset the cost of supporting the workers who can no longer support themselves on your wages c) continue to own and operate the US government as your personal pawns and screw the anyone or anything that gets in your way.

I'm guessing they choose c.

So do I

Nader, Perot, whoever.

I agree but like you said, they have a stranglehold.

I have voted every chance I've had since 1982. I've haven't voted for a D or an R since that first election in '82. I've voted Green, Ind, Reform, Libertarian, whoever I think has the best chance of drawing votes and getting recognized. Fight the power.

She's a skier. I bet you could crack an egg on her ass even if she's not flexing. I'd hit it.

Their pork products should be made from the finest eatsern corn-fed pork. Shipped west live and dressed fresh locally.

She can't prove he drank it all.

The 2 party stranglehold is going to kill the democracy. Choose a third party candidtae, any third party candidate and vote to abolish the 2 party dictatorship.

It's not that different really. Think of how many men got recruited based off the emotions following the Pearl Harbor attack, and then got sent to fight Germans who had nothing to do with it. The difference really is that you think the war against Germany was a just cause and Iraq wasn't, but they both got duped. The vast majority of military engagements in our history have not been about national defense, they've been about politics and resources, and think how many people enlisted on the pretense of fighting for freedom and honor and all those other lies. They all fell for it just like this guy did. Anyone who thought that enlisting meant they can control where they get sent off to is a sucker. The US government gives you some pay, benefits, and training, and then you become their indentured servant, subject to all the BS ulterior motives the US government is prone to have. If you sign up to be an indentured servant for the military, and they're meeting all the agreements in the contract you signed, then you have no right to complain about how you are used.

What's different? This is the first time we've ever gone to war with an all volunteer force. In the past the propaganda made it easier. In the present it's impossible to keep up a fighting force without full force marketing. It's going to get even tougher in the future because the duped patriots of this era will discourage their offspring from carrying on the tradition. Therefore, it's pretty likely there will be regular intervals of great evil doings against us to keep them in the recruiting offices.

Why would we want to allow facts to get in the way of a good story?

The lady in the cubicle next to me is very friendly and sweet but she only stops popping her gum long enough to sing or to debate her work with herself. I only get anything done with the help of Dr. Bose.

There are no known pathogens that can survive in alcohol. 

The gist of it is that without 9/11 and the huge swell of enlistments that followed the Iraq war would not have been possible. I think he speaks for many who feel they were duped. It would be pretty tough for anyone to muster an argument that we would not have been farther advanced in the war on terror if they had not sidetracked all those soldiers into going to Iraq.

The man brings up a point that I brought up 9 years ago and was ridiculed for. There was a huge bait and switch puled off involving the forces that joined the military following 9/11, who thought they would go fight Al Qaeda but ended up in Iraq instead fighting a war invented for the purpose of invigorating the war industry in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union. I participated in the first wave of this during Desert Storm. We softened them up for the big invasion later. 

If he thought the 9 iron to the mouth was bad, wait til he gets a ski pole up the wazoo.

Every time I hear about a "baby bump" I want to issue the speaker a "bitch slap".

So to be clear. thin black men with big ears may only be cast as heroes now. SAG is gonna pitch a real bitch about that.

So the soda ban goes but the NYC gun laws are intact.

It appears that there are more people willing to fight to maintain the right to suck ridiculous amounts of sugary crap down their throats than are willing to fight to maintain the constitutionally afforded right to keep and bear arms in the same space.

I don't know why it has to come down to right vs left. The whole issue of violence, and gun violence particularly, ends up being framed to support a pet issue on someone's agenda. Blame the guns, blame the video games, blame the movies, blame the religious zealotry but by all means never mention that humans are by nature cruel and violent and not everyone is able to retain the ability to suppress this.

Showing the pictures will only fan the emotions and end any possibility of an intelligent debate. Maybe that's what Moore wants. Can't sell documentaries about subjects that don't keep us on edge.

Regardless if they drafted that OL or not this draft was already open.  There's no franchise QB worth a top 10 pick, the DT from Utah has a heart condition that kept him from working out at the combine and with the rookie salary cap teams at the top aren't shitting bricks about paying some unproven player 50M+ over the life of his rookie contract.  There's a lot of depth but there might not even be a QB/WR/RB drafted until the second half of the first round.

One month avatar bet that Smith, Manuel, Barkley, and Lacy ALL go in the top half of the 1st round.

They should go further and get rid of all the rules that assume intent. This includes the empty hand and grounding either to avoid a sack or kill the clock. I would keep the ball alive as long as it's behind the line of scrimmage and have a linesman who determines when it crosses. That way all you have to determine is the line and it keeps things interesting.

Don't you think that "well-regulated" and "shall not be infringed" at least somewhat contradict each other?  And as I said, I support the second amendment.  I don't think it's going anywhere.  Have any of your guns been taken away?  

I think "shall not be infringed" trumps all and I'm always very suspicious of anyone who advocates bans or restrictions on peaceful, law abiding people.

People who support the second amendment - well, let me rephrase that because I support the second amendment - the avid second amendment people, as in the "cold dead hands" type, seem to ignore the words "well regulated" in said amendment.  

And then there's the rest of you who choose to ignore  "rights of the people" and "shall not be infringed". 

Can anyone anywhere tell me how taking the guns away from people who have not shot anyone makes you safer?

Does Christian faith require one to legislate that morality? Shouldn't the party that wants less government have held this position from the beginning? Is anyone really going to fall for this act and suddenly see the Republican party as something other than the personal bitches of their corporate masters?

I don't care what photo you get posted. You cannot have my gun.