This one might interest you, too: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20030714

"J.J.? Mike. Just calling to see how the Dean party's going."

You are absolutely right and frankly, nothing surprises me anymore..I read your post and had to rethink my own views.
Het there MR. Dean- I am wishing you a very nice birthday and a prosperous year ahead.

I thought his cartoon was pretty funny, myself.

Dean,

You might want to consider that your opinions are a result of your own set of blinders. I can acknowledge my own inherent biases and I try to take them into consideration when commenting on issues. The problem is that your statement, " Maybe when you learn to confront those of us who have decided that free markets work better than socialism " is kind of absurd when you consider that a guy like Trudeau is much more successful in the free market then you or I.

Clearly, what he writes strikes a cord with enough people to support a rather good living. Also you tend to make statements like the one above about free markets that are difficult to parse without a fair degree of qualification. Free markets are fine, but they are nether good nor evil, the same with socialists concepts. We have a highly mixed economy and have had since the countries founding. The level of government influence in an agrarian economy was small at the outset because it didn't need to be all that large. Remember that what the colonists were upset with is not so much the level of government intervention as much as the fact they didn’t have a say in their government. (Sure later as punitive measures by the crown became intolerable, that changed the balance but the fact is thet the influence of the crown on a typical brit at the time was not all that consuming.)

As our society became more industrialized, we became much more interdependent as a society. And while we can all agree that government has in some areas become burdensome, the same is true of big business and big labor and any other "Big" you can think of. They are all political entities and as such have the ability to cause some degree of negative influence on our lives. Fact is that as interdependence, complexity and specialization become more pronounced the "commons" as they are called start to include things that in the past were not considered as such. Right now, whole classes of employment are moving off shore in a classic example of the tragedy of commons and yet this is being defended under the guise of "Free" markets. The fact is that what is happening is we are slowly eroding the power of our domestic market in the long term for short-term profits. Additionally the overseas markets who are receiving what amounts to an unearned transfer of expertise are remaining retarded because instead of developing their own products and industry they are dependent on our to keep them working and will be vulnerable to the same shifting sands of globalization as we are allowing ourselves to become. The free market can enslave as much as it can set free.

The US has always been a powerful nation not so much because of "free markets" although that has helped, our power is in the judicious use of free markets and regulation that have developed the economic muscle we flex as the worlds biggest consumer. Nevertheless, right now we are exporting that muscle as fast as we can. When China becomes the worlds biggest consumer, and that won’t be long at the rate we are moving to export our jobs, we will literally be enslaved to a free market we once commanded as our personal tool. The point I am trying to make is everything is a double edged sword, free markets included, if you don’t recognize the bad and only see the good you will get cut. Right now I see many people particularly in the "blogosphere" who focus exclusively on the good and don’t see the bad nor do they think it even exists. That is a huge problem; ideological faith is replacing critical thinking (on both sides of the isle).

Rick, of course I have prejudices. I am aware of a lot of mine, although probably not all of them. But I have certainly re-evaluated many of them, and try to keep doing that whenever I can.

It's people like Trudeau who seem to have this smug and irritating habit of declaring themselves "liberal, open-minded, tolerant, willing to listen to the other side," and then frequently, and without hesitation, say bone-crushingly dense, and breathtakingly arrogant, things like, "conservatives are closed-minded, our arguments are just more complicated than theirs so people won't pay attention to us, conservatives have no committment to fairness while we just want to be fair to everybody."

Translated into English, it looks like this: "I am liberal. That means I am open-minded. Therefore, my opponents are not. If I lose a political battle, it's because those mean people with their simplistic notions bamboozled the foolish public. I wish more people were noble and smart like me and my friends who all agree with me."

As for free markets and regulation: there are still 65,000 pages in the Federal Register the last I looked, on top of countless state, federal, and municipal laws. Also the last I looked, most Americans pour half their income into taxes. We're in no danger of being undertaxed and underregulated any time soon. But I don't know anyone--except for a very few diehard Randites--who want no taxes and no regulation.

I do note that thinking we don't have enough regulation is a conservative, control-oriented notion. Would that more so-called liberals would notice the same thing.

Not only was the cartoon funny, I think it was nearly dead-on. Of course, my biases come into play, but I do believe it is easier for an open-minded person to see through alot of the bull. The knock on conservatives (and it's true) is that they tend to be more set in their ways (hence the label conservative) and therefore less likely to respect different points of views.

However, while the left (mostly liberals) are more open to a wide spectrum of different ideas, they tend to be a little more smug with a hint of an intellectual superiority complex. Albeit, we are indeed smarter.

I showed the cartoon to my conservative collegues (everyone else in my office), and they are still laughing at the last line. See, I told you liberals were smarter. Conservatives don't even know when they are being mocked. Trudeau's work is still relevent in our modern political society, and he does it in style.

Tim the Soldier

Dean,

I sometimes wonder whether liberals really believe this underdog thing, or whether they are simply playing this underdog theme for whatever they can get. Conservatives were the minority for decades in America following the Stock Market crash of 1929. Political fortunes quickly reversed themselves with the Dems the new majority party at every level of government nationwide and Republicans the new minority party.

Things changed ever so slowly beginning in the 1950’s with National Review, Dwight David Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, then Barry Goldwater in the 1960’s. Democrats began to believe they were the permanent majority party with a lock on the U.S. House and Senate. They even went out of their way creating rules making it difficult for Republicans to be elected. That world crumbled with the career of Speaker Jim Wright.

This arrogance finally caught up with them in 1994 when Democrats lost control of the House and Senate for the past decade. Democrats clearly lost touch with the American people with stupid ideas such as midnight basketball. They admitted this mistake following their conference where they chose new leadership. Dashell and Bonior committed their party to “reconnect with their base…”

They tried everything to reacquire their long lost majority status with varying degrees of success. Their most successful strategy was the slash and burn technique of attack, attack and attack again for two solid years. Their favorite poster boy was Newt Gingrich who offered ample target space. Still, they could not reattain majority status. Democrats are now at a loss for new ideas since they still find themselves a minority party at every level of government nationwide. What are they going to do now? I believe they will revert to what worked last and borrow some successful ideas from their enemies the Republicans.

One of these ideas is to act as if they are the minority underdog championing all underdog causes. To do this, they must successfully portray Republicans as the evil people who cater only to money interests to keep themselves cynically in office. One convenient lie they put forth to further this image is to characterize the media as “conservative,” or to question whether the media has any liberal bias at all. That is what the Doonesbury comic strip you linked to comes in. I believe Doonesbury is playing to this new underdog image Democrats are using to brainwash people into distrusting, and therefore disliking Republicans. I personally believe it is rather weak; but at this point the Democrats have nothing else going for them.

>> "I am liberal. That means I am open-minded. Therefore, my opponents are not. If I lose a political battle, it's because those mean people with their simplistic notions bamboozled the foolish public. I wish more people were noble and smart like me and my friends who all agree with me."
As for free markets and regulation: there are still 65,000 pages in the Federal Register the last I looked, on top of countless state, federal, and municipal laws. Also the last I looked, most Americans pour half their income into taxes.

Dean,

Is this attitude you mention the child of a party who believes they have a higher moral calling making anything they do to accomplish their goals lofty and justified? This explains to me the asinine behavior of liberals such as congressman Patrick Kennedy. I did not understand why liberals could never be embarrassed. This might explain that.

The hypocrisy you illustrated is amazing. Liberals really believe conservatives and Republicans are the ones who are bamboozling the American public. This unmitigated gall smacks of the usual Clinton charm. The Clintonistas have bamboozled Americans for the past decade. Adding insult to injury, their lapdog press only facilitated everything they did. The proud watchdog press only recently found its teeth after January 20, 2001.

>> Right now, whole classes of employment are moving off shore in a classic example of the tragedy of commons and yet this is being defended under the guise of "Free" markets. The fact is that what is happening is we are slowly eroding the power of our domestic market in the long term for short-term profits. Additionally the overseas markets who are receiving what amounts to an unearned transfer of expertise are remaining retarded because instead of developing their own products and industry they are dependent on our to keep them working and will be vulnerable to the same shifting sands of globalization as we are allowing ourselves to become. The free market can enslave as much as it can set free.

>> When China becomes the world’s biggest consumer, and that won’t be long at the rate we are moving to export our jobs, we will literally be enslaved to a free market we once commanded as our personal tool.

******************************************************************************

Rick,

You point out some important points in your posting here. You are quite correct in stating that China will eventually be the largest consumer market in the entire world after they straighten out their economy. That change will occur at the pace of China’s domestic politics.

This “tragedy of commons” has its roots in our own domestic policies in America. Our own antiquated Income Tax does much to chase businesses offshore to Bermuda, Mexico, the Virgin Islands and other places. As my congressman said to me, “The Income Tax is the reason that Daimler-Chrysler is not called Chrysler-Daimler.”

You may well call me the most ridiculous item of the day, but this trend will reverse itself when we move to a to tax system worthy of the 21st century. I believe a progressive sales tax will attract investment back to American shores, boost our exports, expand the economy, put $250 Billion back into the economy while reducing the size and scope of our unbeloved national government. It will solve many of the problems you mentioned. You can learn more by visiting htttp://www.fairtax.org. Or, phone 1-800-FAIRTAX.

oh yes kevinb, an affordable healthcare plan for working Americans. What in the hell are these people thinking?!? What "unmitigated gall" to have the vision of medical care for all people! Those bastard "Clintonistas"...how dare they try to use the government to improve the lives of Joe and Jane Citizen when we've got perfectly good private companies like Enron, WorldCom and the like to handle those issues. You know, the free-market economy unfettered will eventually solve all the problems. No need for government interference, that would just hinder corporate profits. And of course, if Buffy can't get a new Jaguar every other year, she's going to be depressed.

btw, can I use the old "watchdog press" line? So original and insightful.

Tim the Soldier

It should be noted that the big companies you lament did their dirty work under Clinton's watch, but the blame gets placed squarely on the Bush administration for pursuing the cases. That is an interesting double-standard.

How about the ad at the top of the Slate page with the Doonebury cartoon, featuring Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Bill Maher? I like Bill Maher, but I just couldn't keep the Three Stooges meme from popping into my head.

What I find irritating about the cartoon is the ham-handed way in which liberal words are put into the conservative's mouth. He boasts that liberals are tolerant and that "we" fulfill the liberal caricature of us.

I don't know too many conservatives who would agree with him. And, as a conservative university professor who regularly gets called a fascist and a Nazi by colleagues I try to like, I can't suppress a bitter-tinged chuckle whenever someone talks of liberal tolerance. To borrow the Ghandi quote, twisting it to my own right-wing purposes: It would be a good idea.

Tim's comments are probably the most biased, unfounded, and flat-out wrong I have ever seen anyone take credit for.

Not only is he dead wrong, note how any challenge is met with a complete non-sequitor. The man claiming he "is more open to a wide spectrum of different ideas" is so indoctrinated he doesn't even consider that both parties goal is the betterment of society. How does an unfair tax system lead to "an affordable healthcare plan for working Americans". Who knows? For Tim, faith is enough.

Note: I don't necessarily agree with Kevin about his income tax solution. But Tim implied acceptance by complete failure to address the point.

How lefties get through life completely avoiding the evidence of history is beyond my understanding. But it is perfectly clear they somehow managed to do just that.

Indeed my comments were the most biased that you have seen...that was until mj posted his messgage. Of course, I realize you were being ironic by pointing out my biases by using your biases. I almost took you seriously for a second.

No doubt, both parties' aim is for the betterment of society. Coming from the left, I am more than willing to admit that Nixon, Reagan, Bush(s) all had the same goal of improving our great nation. At the same time, history also reveals that Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton had that same goal. As the Chinese proverb says: "There are many roads to the mountain top, but the view is the same."

Why is Tim the Soldier a democrat? Many reasons.

1. I have a little more trust in big government than I do big business, and I give credit (perhaps too much) to a strong federal government in its ability to solve problems.

2. I believe in a progressive stratified income tax. (most republicans don't)

3. I support same-sex marriages (most republicans don't)

4. I would like to see some sort of federal involvement in solving healthcare issues. (affordable and portable healthcare for working Americans) See, I believe that healthcare is a right not a priviledge in our nation. (most conservatives don't see it that way)

5. Although I do admire many republican politicians, my political heros have been overwhelmingly democrats (or democratically thinking: Teddy Roosevelt would be a democrat today if he wasn't dead.)

6. See the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Tim the Soldier

Tim, a response to your points in order:

First, a clarification. You seem to be conflating so-called conservatives with Republican voters. However, the post to which you respond does not necessarily refer to Republicans. Dean's issue with the cartoon is that it does not realize that in today's political climate liberal principles could (and most likely would) lead someone to adopt "conservative" politics. The classical liberal influence is felt somewhat in the republican party (among the neocons), but moreso in the libertarian party (to which I belong). With that out of the way:

1: On what evidence do you base this confidence in government to outperform the private sector in problem solving?
2:On what principle or ideal do you base this belief? What evidence causes you to believe that this policy is the best way to actualize that principle?
3: Virtually all libertarians and classical liberals support equal marriage rights (whether this means civil ceremonies for all or all marriages by private contract). Most Democratic Party politicians don't.
4: On what evidence do you base your idea that socialization of health care will provide *better* and *cheaper* care for the average american? This is perhaps the best example of your failed understanding of the (warning: when I say liberal, I mean "conservative") liberal position. A liberal approaches the issue of health care by asking "will this change in policy create a system in which health care is better or worse" and then supports the change if the answer is yes and opposes it if the answer is no. Your position seems to have been arrived at by taking a dogmatically held leftist belief (state intervention ought be maximised) and applying it to the aforementioned question, arriving at your conclusion, and then looking for evidence/rhetoric with which to support it. Keep in mind that a conclusion drawn without giving serious consideration to the possibility that the other side may be right is a weak conclusion.
5: On what evidence do you base your assertion about teddy roosevelt? Would you make the same assertion about Abraham Lincoln? If yes, on what evidence do you base it?
6: This is the kind of thing that drives me absolutely batty. Is there a single scrap of evidence that causes you to believe that you are the rightful heir of the civil rights movement? If yes, what is it? If no, your backhanded attempt to paint your political opponents as racists and closet segregationists is noted and not appreciated.

Fish,

This one is almost too easy. I don't think I'll even need Ara's help on it.

1. What private organization would be able to:
successfully land a man on the moon?

sustain the most powerful army of all time?

plan and build the interstate highway system?

eradicate smallpox, polio, tb...hmmm maybe the CDC, perhaps one of the most wildly successful organizations in our history.

maintain public libraries?

fund the greatest university system in all the world? Remember, private universities receive federal funds, not to mention the fact that most of the students come from a public school background.

ok, how about the GI Bill, VA loans, FHA, the office of the surgeon general, the FAA, the FCC, lighthouses, social security, the EPA?

2. (progressive/stratified taxes) Sort of covers
the Teddy Roosevelt issue as well. TR spoke at great length about the dangers of individual citizens acquiring great amounts of wealth and private property. He felt it would no doubt lead to another French revolution and inevitable class warfare. One way to solve this issue was to tax wealthy individuals at a higher rate. William Gates Sr. has spoken in great detail abou this as well. The wealthy, he states, have benefitted more from our federal government and its policies and programs that essentially enabled them to accumulate such great wealth that they should likewise be taxed at a higher percentage. Please, don't bother with the whole supply-side economics argument. Nearly all economist reject the effectiveness of SSE, Greenspan is one of them. I think his credibility is established.

3. Most democratic politicians DO! And this is what makes me often ashamed of my party (that and Maxine Waters) is that won't speak their true beliefs because they don't want to lose votes.

4. Give me a break! Examine the health care systems of every western European nation and Japan. Nearly every country has as high, if not higher, life expectancy compared to the U.S. I'm not advocating complete socialization of the health care system, but something can be done to improve it. This is one clear case wear the private sector can work hand in hand with the government to solve the problem. Healthcare, like the military, shouldn't be a business, it's a service. We;ve got to change the way we think about it. Plus, the medical community does not operate under a free-market system.

5. See 2. He zealously took on big business and busted up monopolies. Brokered peace between Russia and Japan. Expanded the public parks and preservation programs.

6. I never stated that my political opponents were or are racist. They made those statements themselves. Dixiecrats left the democratic party when minorities joined. Nearly every civil rights leader identified and allied themselves with the democratic party (although Jackie Robinson was a lifelong republican, he eventually came to despise Nixon). Without the efforts of liberal democrats, the civil rights act and civil rights bill would never have advanced so far and so quickly as it did. Even my conservative friends won't dispute this.

Fish, I grew up in the south, and have studied and read about almost every major political figure since 1950, don't waste your time defending their actions (or more appropriately their inactions).

Tim the Soldier

Interesting, Tim, but again completely off topic. This is what we were addressing:

"However, while the left (mostly liberals) are more open to a wide spectrum of different ideas, they tend to be a little more smug with a hint of an intellectual superiority complex. Albeit, we are indeed smarter."

The only correct statement is liberals "tend to be a little more smug with a hint of an intellectual superiority complex".

ATTENTION BLOGGERS! It appears the "mj" (if that is his/her real name) has cornered the market on the ability to identify correct statements.

I thought that this ability belonged exclusively the right-wing radio host wackos and Pat Robertson (I thought Michael Jackson (hmmm...mj?)was strange until I read what PR has been saying. Holy Shit!!)

Come on mj, you know the lefties are more open to new ideas than conservatives. This is part of what gets us in trouble...trying to save society from itself. I'll admit that we are wrong 50% of the time, but we usually err with good intention (as, I believe, conservatives do. 50% of the time correct.) The other 50% of the time, neither side knows what the hell to do. When in doubt, bomb the Chinese Embassy.

Tim the Soldier

Tim,

Why do you continue to post off-topic and resort to infantile insults rather than deal with the issues? Could it be that you are so unused to debating the topics that you are unable to develop actual arguments?

Let me ask you a couple of questions, then Tim. Do "liberals" accept new ideas on education, like vouchers? No, they're perfectly content to stick with the same tried and true failures.

What ideas do liberals have to deal with terrorism? Well, let's see. There's (a) pretending it will go away if we surrender, (b) pretending whichever pet project they have supported for 30 years is actually a cure for terrorism, and (c) pretending there is no terrorism. Not much new there.

Do you actually have anything to say, Tim the Soldier? Your entire argument thus far consists of "we're smarter than conservatives". I'd have to rate that as not particularly convincing. You're welcome to hang your case on it though.

mj,

Since you have already decided to answer your own questions, I won't attempt to correct you since you already know everything. When you are ready to sit down and LISTEN (conservatives rarely can) we can have an intelligent discussion. I will never claim to have all the answers, but I know I am not a cruel individual. I have an idea of what kind of country I want my grandchildren to grow up in, and the republicans aren't moving in the direction that will ensure a "better" society. (Again, these are my feelings and beliefs based on what I have seen, read, heard, experienced and trust.) My decision is to work within the democratic party and support candidates that hold nearer to my vision than not. If a republican, independent, green party, or other candidate comes along, and they represent my views, I will be the first in line to campaign and vote for them.

It is my observation that the right/conservatives/republicans (damn I hate labels!!!) tends to be more concerned with winning the argument rather than seeking the truth. Not always though.

Your statements further support my argument about the heartless right.

Tim the Soldier

Tim:

You are painting with a very broad brush here. You are insulting quite a few people out there.

You are sound like a racist an ideological racist and it is ugly. You are unable to listen and comprehend what is being said on a regular basis but nobody here calls you an idiot. Even when you behave like one.

I wasn't going to say anything at all but I'm tired of reading what I am according to Tim. You need to grow up. Most of the bullshit you have spouted here on this thread makes you sound like Ann "fucking" Coulter or Michael Moore.

You want conservatives to listen then show a little respect. If you act like a witless buffoon you will be treated like one and nobody will listen to a damn thing you have to say.

Tim the Soldier

Your comments are nothing but ad hominem attacks to cover your baseless attack on those who don't agree with your ideology. You then somehow believe this entitles you to the moral high road.

Let's review your position: "The knock on conservatives (and it's true) is that they tend to be more set in their ways (hence the label conservative) and therefore less likely to respect different points of views.

However, while the left (mostly liberals) are more open to a wide spectrum of different ideas, they tend to be a little more smug with a hint of an intellectual superiority complex. Albeit, we are indeed smarter."

This is followed by "When you are ready to sit down and LISTEN (conservatives rarely can) we can have an intelligent discussion."

Yes, liberals are everything wonderful in the world and those mean conservatives just want to spoil everyone's fun. Liberals' only problem is that they just can't hide how much better they are than the rest of us.

Your position is an inaccurate stereotype supported solely by arrogance. Did you expect to post something like this without being called on it?

No, Tim the Soldier, you're not cruel. But everyone who thinks differently than you is stupid, cruel, and heartless.

How about this, Tim the Soldier. When you have one piece of evidence or one actual argument to support your ridiculous theory you let me know. Until then I think it would be impossible to have an intelligent discussion since you seem to have nothing to say.

Alright, now that you've actually made clear what the hell you're talking about, we can have a discussion.

points in order again.

1: Perhaps you're unclear as to what I'm asking for. I'm not in the slightest interested in your naming off things in which the public sector has a monopoly due to 1) lack of interest or economic feasibility on the part of the private sector or 2) the use of legal force. You've simply listed the accomplishments of the state in areas in which they have no competition (and you weren't even completely correct there. just off the top of my head I can tell you that the polio vaccine was created by a private researcher funded by a private foundation... if you think that the government has outperformed the pharmeceutical industries in finding cures for infectious diseases well, I've got a great bridge in brooklyn for cheap).
Basically, the undisputed fact that there are some services that can only be provided by the state (IE: preventing the unlawful use of force by citizens or foreign aggressors) does not lead to the conclusion that the state ought have a monopoly on anything else. Consider it this way: if there was a compelling reason to land a man on the moon someone would have been willing to pay to do it, and had that happened the private sector would indeed have outperformed the government in so doing. Don't believe me, then find an example of the state competing with the private sector and coming out on top.
2. "TR spoke at great length about the dangers of individual citizens acquiring great amounts of wealth and private property. He felt it would no doubt lead to another French revolution and inevitable class warfare" The value of a theory is in its predictive power. For this statement to have any merit at all, we'd have to see some guillotines (individuals have acquired much much more wealth and property now than was even imaginable in TR's day).
3. Hmm, apparently you've inherited Dubya's power to stare into people's souls? Otherwise, how do you know that they "aren't speaking their real beliefs"? Never mind, I've got it. Because they're democrats, they must have the right beliefs, and their failure to speak them, while disappointing, still leaves them much better than Republicans, who have wrong beliefs.
4. For someone familiar with economics, you make a great deal out of a correlation which you admit isn't even universal. Perhaps you misunderstood me when I asked for evidence? I'll explain: evidence would be something that demonstrates a causal link between socialized health care and improved public health. A good way to do this would be to examine whether the health care of countries becomes better or worse after implementing socialized medicine, or if its health care is better or worse than countries that don't *after controlling for counfounding factors*.
5. Both Reagan and Bush 1 expanded the public parks and preservation programs.
6. This is another example of the false dichotomy you've set up. There are more players in the game than Republicans and Democrats. Today's conservatives and libertarians (who are not necessarily all registered republicans and, if they are, do not necessarily share the views of all other Republicans... don't believe me? Is there any positions on which you disagree with Al Sharpton?) are in many cases the same people who marched for civil rights in the 60s (David Horowitz is one example from the top of the head). Furthermore, the fact that a party supported a movement 40 years ago is really irrelevant when considering whether or not its positions today are consistent with the ideals of that platform. Or am I to infer that Democrats are in fact in favor of slavery? Basically, you're supporting a party because some racists left the party in the 1960s? Forgive me if I don't strain myself running to change my registration as soon as possible. By the way, you still haven't addressed the idea that philosophically liberal positions may lead one to "conservative" politics. This is, essentially, the story of the neocons.

fish,

I'm usually not one to give in so easily, but I do see you points. ("See, only a loser would admit that.") What I stand by and haven't been convinced of is that the direction of the republican party is better for the country than the platform the democrats have. Granted, to butcher a Tip O'Neill quote, "all politics is local." I'd only add that in our high-tech information age and saturation of infotainment, our "village" has become much smaller and the issues seem to take on greater significance as do their implications. That is, imho, why polical discourse is so interesting and so many people are getting involved. I think that we haven't entirely lost the civility in discussing these issues, but damn, sarcasm and hyper-sensitivity is at an all-time high.

As for me, politics is interesting, but people who use these discussion forums to secretly live out their intellectual "couldhavebeens" perplex me. Like the ex-jock (who wasn't that great in high school or college) but now dominates his softball league, many bloggers (Dean is NOT one of them) just bully other people with their tired (pick a side left or right) rhetoric. I can't take much of this entirely serious, because I see the ridiculous humor in it all.

Rosemary: Pot, this is kettle, over. Give me a break will ya. Hell, my biggest political/historical influences are James Carville, your husband, Dennis Miller, and John Keegan.

Tim the Jackass

Tim wrote: 1. What private organization would be able to:
successfully land a man on the moon?

I'm not sure, but have you read Bill Whittle's Trinity?

It's quite lengthy, so you'll have to budget some time. Call me a sentimental fool, but I literally got a lump in my throat when Bill pulled it all together at the end. And yes, it has a little something to do with the above quote.

tim: I'm perfectly willing to believe that the republicans are equally as bad or worse for the country as the democrats (I rarely support either, the major exception being John McCain). So on that, at least, we agree. That being said, I, for one, am done with this thread.

tim: I'm perfectly willing to believe that the republicans are equally as bad or worse for the country as the democrats (I rarely support either, the major exception being John McCain). So on that, at least, we agree. That being said, I, for one, am done with this thread.

dsl angebot dsl dsl dsl tarife dsl flatrate isdn xxl dsl bestellen dsl dsl flatrate dsl dsl dsl angebote 1&1

Nice and enaging blog, but all the spam is starting to ruin many sites like this one!

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

great site!

great site!