McCain should save himself the time and his supporters their money by withdrawing from the race and return to the Senate. McCain's efforts to support the illegal immigration amnesty has killed all hope of him winning the GOP nomination.

While the Democrats have been tripping over themselves to give away citizenship and massive entitlements to millions of illegal aliens and all their family members back in Latin America, the GOP are smarter than that.

Here's a simple test for everyone in the Senate when deciding how to vote:

- Does Ted Kennedy support it? If yes, vote NAY!
- Did Ted Kennedy write the bill? If yes, not only vote NAY, but do everything in your power to get your peers to vote NAY!

Voters are FINALLY starting to realize the Democrat Senate does not have American citizens best interests at heart. Dems have been championing illegal alien amnesty since 1965 and no amount of spin or "comprehensive negotiations" will make this bill work for America.

McCain has failed the GOP and America and I guarantee he will NOT be the GOP nominee for President.

For those who want to learn about the illegal immigration crisis, visit http://stoptheinvasion.blogspot.com

I hope you all know that internet polling compared to other polls reaches out to a larger number of people. Since internet polling gets more votes then regular polling, internet polling is more accurate.

The fact that Ron Paul has won consistently in internet polling, I think you should take notice.

Of course the media denies Ron Paul's popularity. It is because big business fears him. OPEN YOUR EYES.

Most polls that they use to try to represent the population are hand picked to their liking, and usually only encompass a couple of hundred potential voters, compared to the hundreds of thousands voters that vote in online polls.

WAKEUP and be honest with yourself.

Ron Paul in 08'

This has got to be the most childish blog I've seen yet. Many of the posters on here have no civility or respect for dissenting opinions. They deserve the police state we will get if any of the mainstream Republicans or Democrats win.

I don't care if you like Ron Paul or not as a person. Take your best shot to refute his facts and views if you can. Seems very few of the contributors on the blog have anything so they refute to name calling or attacking posters they don't agree with.

Both the Democratic and Republican party leadership as well as the MSM, including the WaPo, have the worst case of group think I've ever seen. That kind of group think got us embroiled in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

Yes, the events on MSNBC and Fox were pseudo-debates.

For all you progressives out there, check out the following blog from The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=195576

Here's some more evidence of Fox News bias and Giuliani's conflicts of interest:

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5461_0_3_0_C/

We need more input from candidates like Paul and Kucinich to give the clowns that are trying to buy the presidency a reality check.

This has got to be the most childish blog I've seen yet. Many of the posters on here have no civility or respect for dissenting opinions. They deserve the police state we will get if any of the mainstream Republicans or Democrats win.

I don't care if you like Ron Paul or not as a person. Take your best shot to refute his facts and views if you can. Seems very few of the contributors on the blog have anything so they refute to name calling or attacking posters they don't agree with.

Both the Democratic and Republican party leadership as well as the MSM, including the WaPo, have the worst case of group think I've ever seen. That kind of group think got us embroiled in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

Yes, the events on MSNBC and Fox were pseudo-debates.

For all you progressives out there, check out the following blog from The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=195576

Here's some more evidence of Fox News bias and Giuliani's conflicts of interest:

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5461_0_3_0_C/

We need more input from candidates like Paul and Kucinich to give the clowns that are trying to buy the presidency a reality check.

Aussie view says:

>"What a bunch of tough guys they are. God help us if the Republicans win this election. I agreed with Ron Paul on what he said about what caused the 9/11 attacks, but don't agree with him on much else. Guiliani's interruption was lame and predictable. Almost all of them (Paul the exception) are shoot first ask questions later types. It scares me really."

The "debates" so far could be named Ron Paul and the 9 troglodites.

Only Tancredo showed a mild amount of gumption when he referred to "disagreeing with my beloved friend..." after Rudy G threw his cheapshot.

Everyone on that stage knows that, agree with him or not, Ron Paul is a man of integrity whose word is a bond.

Not one of them had the guts to look at that audience and say the following;

"Now wait a minute Mayor, I know Ron Paul, have worked with Ron Paul and he is a man of honor and integrity. He is a loyal and patriotic American who has just as much right as you to express his views to the American public and his fellow Republicans. It is up to them to agree or disagree with him but he owes neither you nor anyone else any apology for expressing his opinion."

Any of the 8 troglodites who summoned the conviction to make a statement along these lines would have scored bigtime at Rudy's expense.

That none did speaks loud and clear as to why the Pubs are headed for a disaster in 2008. They are all robotically superficial chameleons, possessing little intellectual depth, who stammer and stutter when even remotely nudged off their script.

I hate to say this, because it is a joke of a 'news' organisation, but I think the Fox moderators did a better job than MSNBC. The main thing I liked is pulling up the candidates when they avoided a question.

What a bunch of tough guys they are. God help us if the Republicans win this election. I agreed with Ron Paul on what he said about what caused the 9/11 attacks, but don't agree with him on much else. Guiliani's interruption was lame and predictable. Almost all of them (Paul the exception) are shoot first ask questions later types. It scares me really.

I've been trying to work out which is the best of a bad bunch, from a progressive's perspective. I think it's McCain, or maybe Huckabee. Yes they are both social conservatives but that doesn't mean anything really, especially as I'm a non-US citizen. Obviously McCain's Iraq stance worries me. At least McCain has some honour on the torture issue, and he is strong on fighting global warming. If you take away his stance on evolution, Huckabee seems sensible enough too. Still a pretty bad bunch to choose from. Give me Hillary anyday ahead of all of them (and she is a long way from my first choice, Gore).

BTW, I don't know what Thompson is doing out there, he can't put two words together.

I don't get to see the debates as easily here in Germany. The more I watch all the candidates from both sides, the more and more I like Barack Obama. I especially like his plan for US foreign policy. Please take a look at this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a2r9rsewVRg
It is his speech to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs, and he outlines his plan. It just makes too much sense. I feel like this has to be the most important topic because 1) I am a Soldier, and 2) I am stationed overseas and about to go to Iraq. You owe it to yourself to at least watch it.

What debate? Are you trying to call the infomercial that the GOP and the Dems put on every couple of weeks a debate? Has nobody ever witnessed a true debate? Why is the English language being changed? LET'S HAVE A TRUE DEBATE!

What debate? Are you trying to call the infomercial that the GOP and the Dems put on every couple of weeks a debate? Has nobody ever witnessed a true debate? Why is the English language being changed? LET'S HAVE A TRUE DEBATE!

Build a Fence Around This, Tom:
I wagered that global warming would be a topic in Monday's SC debates - instead it was whittled to 1 question, and that to Tancredo. He doubts the science, but at least he's willing to look at GW through a lens familiar to him: national security. Maybe we'll see a bit more attention on June 5; after all, a Decemember 2006 poll of likely NH R primary voters said global warming was a serious issue, likely caused by humans and needed attention. And if many if not most of the 160 + towns that passed a climate change resolution in March lean right (most voted for Sununu in 2002 and Bush in 2004), the candidates stand to gain points by paying attention and offering their solutions.

Build a Fence Around This, Tom:
I wagered that global warming would be a topic in Monday's SC debates - instead it was whittled to 1 question, and that to Tancredo. He doubts the science, but at least he's willing to look at GW through a lens familiar to him: national security. Maybe we'll see a bit more attention on June 5; after all, a Decemember 2006 poll of likely NH R primary voters said global warming was a serious issue, likely caused by humans and needed attention. And if many if not most of the 160 + towns that passed a climate change resolution in March lean right (most voted for Sununu in 2002 and Bush in 2004), the candidates stand to gain points by paying attention and offering their solutions.

As long as we keep electing Republicans and Democrats who belong to the War Party, we will keep having unconsitutional, no-win wars. On the White House website is a copy of the Congressional resolution authorizing George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq. It makes for an interesting read, as it has to be one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation since the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 that got us into the Vietnam War. Every single war the US has been involved in since WW2 has been the product of Congress delegating its war-making powers to the Executive Branch. What political and moral cowardice! Congressmen and Senators get to have their wars and the profits derived therefrom, and if things go badly, they just blame it all on whatever President happens to be around at the time. There are only two politicians around who are honest about this problem, Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. I am a believer in capitalism and free markets, so I like Paul better than Kucinich the socialist, but at least Dennis is an honest and decent man. Either of these two guys could get this idiotic war over with in a hurry. If we end up with ClintonObamaMcCainRomneyGiuliani, we will have another four years of war, inflation and the suppression of our civil liberties. If we had enough sense to emulate the Swiss and institute a state of heavily armed neutrality, our terrorism problem would end overnight, I guarantee it. It really is just that simple

Firstly I am disgusted by some candidates attempts at "jokes" to garner support, Ron Paul was actually talking about issues while everyone else was trying to show off the cult of personality. Disgusting. Please, no jokes at a debate where we are discussing WAR and TORTURE. Also I am shocked that the audience was largly in support of torture. Folks have to realize that torture is not a useful tactic and happens to be completely morally reprehensible. I applaud the media for questioning poll accuracy in polls that show Ron Paul in the lead, but would anyone be suspicious about the polls if Romney or McCain were leading? Polls are not always correct but the media seems to only bring this up when Ron Paul places well......

If elevated gas prices are tied to decreased refining capacities, this year...what about last year's spike at the same time(m-day, summer)and how do they respond to the question of record earnings this past year? If the US waged war as it has been throughout history we would own Iraq, Iran and all their oil and assets and instead of spending , we would be reaping the benefits of war! Maybe then we could rest assured that the $ the Gov. now takes from us under the guise of returning in in the form of SS benefits might actually be returned in benefits...otherwise isn't it just theft?

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Let's say this was 2004 and Ron Paul said what he said, or any candidate for that matter. Obviously the reaction to him would be viscerally negative. But this 2007 and the mythology around 9-11 is starting to crumble, especially when the man who is responsible for it is still at large and Mitt Romney doesn't feel going after him is all that important and when hizzoner squeezed out all the juice of that moment for benefit of his political career.

Now many people are realizing that U.S. foreign policy has real consequences, especially when much of that policy lies in ruins and world opinion is very much against us. That's why Ron Paul wasn't "destroyed" by Guliani's retort because more and more people see it for what is was, nationalistic emtionalism that wound up putting U.S. troops in harms way accomplishing nothing but getting killed. If that wasn't true, Paul would have gotten 5% in the post debate poll, not 25% and you can't spam a text-message poll, which is why Fox did it that way.

Look, you may not agree with what Ron Paul said but its not a "crackpot" view. The only people who view it that way are the neocons who are terrified of having such a debate. They had their chance to remake and they failed. Now it's time to give Ron Paul's non-intervensionism a chance.

It's time for a change, you can't have a more basic message than that and that's why Ron Paul is going to outlast the Brownback's, the Thompsons, the Gilmores and the Tancredos, because all they represent is more of the same.

Brit Hume, former tennis partner of the President he was supposed to be covering, has zero credibility with respect to anything objective.

Lapdog for the Fellow Travelers on the Right.

>Posted by: Dominic | May 17, 2007 12:15 AM

>"I don't disagree with Ron Paul on everything, but the guy is a crackpot extraordinaire. Ron Paul and his delusional followers should find some other planet where they can live out their cult-like existence in a Star Trek convention-like format."

Nice ad hominem. Did you have anything of substance to discuss?

You know, I criticized the Dems when they cancelled the Fox News debate--they should play on the conservatives turf and be on offense.

After seeing that debate, I was stunned at how slanted and ridiculous it was. In the intros, they placed the candidates' religion directly after their names in the bios--before indicating the office they hold/held and what their resume was. And their questions read like the administrations' talking points--not necessarily conservative talking points or even Republican talking points (which would be fine in a Republican party). They read as if the White House had written the questions themselves.

I also thought the debate was poorly executed. The moderators lost complete control of the debate there after Paul's comments. And did anyone else notice that Ron Paul was asked EXACTLY the same question twice in the debate (regarding if he's running in the "right party's" campaign?). I also thought that a lopsided amount of time was spent on torture, and that Brit Hume's hypothetical terrorist attack and interrogation questions were ridiculous.

'So it has nothing to do with an interpretation of religion that says we are infidels and should be killed?'

That's just the voices in your head.

Coming to Paul's defense, however, is Andrew Sullivan:

"The conservative pundits are now referring to Ron Paul as a 'crackpot.' Hannity predictably savaged him. The Hewitt site has an image of a man in a tin-foil hat; Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt both call for removing Paul from the debates, when he has been the best thing about them so far. Bill Benett wants him out. I'm getting the usual ridicule for taking him seriously from the usual GOP apparatchiks. They're scared, aren't they?

"The Internet polls show real support for him. Fox News' own internet poll placed him a close second, with 25 percent of the votes from Fox News viewers. We have a real phenomenon here - because someone has to stand up for what conservatism once stood for. Whether you agree with him or not ( and I know few outside doctrinaire libertarians who agree with everything he says), he has already elevated the debates by injecting into them a legitimate, if now suppressed, strain of conservatism that is actually deeper in this country than the neoconservative aggression that now captures the party elite and has trapped the U.S. in the Iraq nightmare.

"Tuesday night, Fox News tried to destroy him. Today the right-wing blogs will.

Although most of the candidates' wealth came as no surprise, everyone pays particular attention to Rudolph Giuliani, who reported a net worth of more than $30 million, which is a large increase from the less than $2 million he had in personal assets when he stepped down as mayor.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Big Oil went on the defensive Wednesday, getting grilled before a House panel and denying accusations that mismanagement and a lack of competition are the reasons behind this spring's record gasoline prices.

Gas prices hit $3.10 a gallon Wednesday, according to AAA. It's the fourth record day in a row, and the surge has been attributed to low gasoline supplies caused by a lack of refining capacity.

"They have no interest in building spare capacity because that would undermine their pricing power," Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America, said prior to a hearing by a House Judiciary Committee antitrust panel in Washington Wednesday.

At the hearing, monitored on television in New York, Cooper was just as blunt.

"This is a picture of fundamental market failure," he said. "And Congress and the administration have stood by and done nothing to help consumers."

Cooper pointed to the record earnings at oil companies and said in any other industry this would attract new businesses.

But he said the domestic refining industry has continued to consolidate, allowing operators to shun building refineries, run existing ones at full throttle and thus cause many of the accidents and outages the nation has experienced over the last few months.

"This is just mismanagement," he said. "But they get away with it because there is no competitive discipline."

Actually, Progressive, Republican candidates have been quick to criticize the party for its lack of restraint and fiscal discipline while in charge. Many of us were disgusted with Republican leaders acting contrary to our principles; they broke faith with us and the millions of Americans who expected them to act as a bulwark against excessive government spending. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Cordially,

Ron

I don't disagree with Ron Paul on everything, but the guy is a crackpot extraordinaire. Ron Paul and his delusional followers should find some other planet where they can live out their cult-like existence in a Star Trek convention-like format.

Honestly, have people forgotten what it means to be a Republican? Ron Paul is the only guy up the Reagan would have voted for.

I worked for the National Republican Congressional Committee and I'll tell you right know- currently the system is friggin broken.

By the way Guliani is on Newscorp's (Fox) payroll as a "consultant."

Conflict of interest? I think so.

Guliani is an anti-gun, prochoice, New York thrice married, authoritarian liberal who uses September 11th as a ticket to legitimacy.

This guy is soposed to be a Republican? This world has gone nuts.

We got one last shot with Paul. God help us.

He is also paid by the Suadis as a "consultant."

Ron Paul is as far from gone as can be. Ron Paul will stick around until about the time of the primaries garnering as much money and support and operational personnell he can attract while in the Republican primary and then he'll agree to to be the Libertarian nominee.

The only reason that Senator Hagel hasn't jumped into the Republican primary is because he knows his anti-war views won't fly in the primaries. Ron Paul has the same problem, he knows his views won't fly and that he has no chance for the Republican nomination but he knows he'll get even less exposure and money if he declares he is running for the Libertarian nomination. He'll suck up as much exposure and republican cash as he can and then jump ship. His views may not fly well in the hard care republican basethat votes in the election,they will fly better with the indys.

I will not take any of them seriously until I hear a plan for strong leadership to mitigate the climate crisis. The next president must, MUST, lead the country, and the world, in reducing GHG emissions 80% by 2050 if we expect to avoid catastrophic damage to ecosystems that will ultimately threaten civilization as we know it. Who's it going to be? Only the candidate that can commit to a serious plan to combat climate change even stands a chance.

Belief in the surge is a clear symptom of testicular shrinkage.

I want to be Rudy's fourth wife. How long must I take hormones before I will be ready for surgery?

Dear Zouk, Razorback, et al (mostly Zouk):

I have been reading this for a while now, but this is my first contribution. I am socially liberal, foreign policy moderate, fiscal conservative, so I don't think you should write me off as a "moonbat." I agree with what someone else said, that the tone of this conversation is not conducive to an actual political discussion. I include ErrinF in this category, but I also include you two. (Again, mostly Zouk.)
You have to know that if you want to convince anyone of your ideas, you have to first stop calling them names.
Next, you have to acknowledge the arguments of those who disagree with you and ANSWER THEM INTELLIGENTLY. This means without irrelevant pop culture references, and without ignoring the points that have been made.
Finally, you have to know when to let go. Just as you, Zouk, seem never to change your mind, you must accept that others have the same right.
I am an elementary school teacher, and it amazes me that I find myself typing the same advice to you that I give to my 9 year old students. The point of this blog is to provide adults with a forum for the discussion of politics and current events, not to make individual posters feel important.

Sincerely,

Justin Kelly

Andy R! I want the department of education gone myself. Even my fiance (who is studying education) wants it gone as well.

Just because we eliminate the FEDERAL department of Education does not mean we will lose all schools. No way. That is why we have state education departments.

As to the debate. Guiliani hands down.

To the list of winners I would add Huckabee. Of course, he's starting so far behind that that his performance probably won't do any good. But he was articulate and provided a good defense to the charge that he was a tax-raiser.

I also have to strongly commend McCain for his principled stand on torture. And Romney's defense of the same, along with his overly enthusiastic support of Guantanamo, came across as clashing with his much-publicized Christian principles. He came across as a panderer.

Razor, don't know if you're still around or not. Sorry for the delayed response.

It's not necessarily that we shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi military. Of course we should have. It's the letting them keep their weapons that's the problem. Who in their right mind believed that everything would be ok if we let a disbanded military hold on to their guns?

I'm surprised I failed to note this before, but the only prominent politician who directly claimed "we deserved it" (Jerry Falwell) was given unending praise by most of the Republican candidates before the debate.

I am appalled at the Washington Post's shoddy, shoddy journalism by twisting Ron Paul's words and making it sounded like he said "America deserved 9/11." That's pathetic and anyone who listened will know there is a big big difference in discussing blowback and saying "we deserved it."

In the second GOP debate in South Carolina, Congressman Ron Paul has shown just how much Rudy Giuliani and most of the Republican Party is living in a bubble and ignores 50 years of interventionist foreign policy. How very, very shortsighted Rudy is.

While I'm not going to argue that radical Islamic terrorists hate America for its culture, a very strong case can be made that interventionist foreign policy amplified it exponentially and created more radical Islamic terrorists as a result of its military policy before 9/11 ever occurred.

Then post-9/11, radical political Islam against America was taken care of when America went after the Taliban and radical terrorist sects like Al Qaeda. Since then, America invaded Iraq with no evidence it was supporting terrorists or housing WMD's and lost sight of the true culprits. As much as I think Saddam deserved his fate, the Iraq invasion has also brought further disdain to our country and furthered the cause of terrorism through its unilateral military actions. If any more terrorists acts happen in America it would be foolish to think it wasn't because of this.

Congressman Ron Paul is the only candidate whose view is based on this pragmatic reality. Wake up Republicans! Your only true conservative is Ron Paul, not another authoritarian world-policer.

That cyncical tool and extremist interpretation would gain no traction without our involvement over there. We need troops over there, for many obvious reasons. Pretending that this justifiable policy has no effect on these madmen does not assist us in defeating them and protecting our interests. Claiming America's policies cause something to happen and blaming America for something are two distinct things, and the American media should stop perpetuating the myth that there is no seperation between the two in the shameful, anti-intellectual way it has.

Kevin Steimel:

So it has nothing to do with an interpretation of religion that says we are infidels and should be killed?

Even if you believe that every action we have taken in the Middle East is justifiable and necessary, is it even remotely possible to hold the view that the Islamists attacked us because of our wealth and freedom, rather than foreign policy? Inexcusable, intellectually disengaged mainstream media protocol calls for claiming that Paul's comments amounted to "suggesting we brought the attacks upon ourselves." What a joke. Acting as if any suggestion that the attacks were motivated by U.S. policy rather than "a hatred of freedom" is a great failure of American media. It is equally laughable that a prominent political analyst would consider Giuliani's reaction as a "rare moment of genuine emotion" rather than the obvious pander that it was. The attacks were incredibly brutal, evil, and unjustifiable, but the motivation for them was not a hatred of freedom but US policy. If we shut reasonable views of cause and effect out of our political dialogue, we lose our ability to make informed decisions. (responses that wish to be returned should be sent to steimelkb@vcu.edu)

Martimr1:

I never advocated abandoning Israel. I was just making a list of things that piss off terrorists, and wondering what all the lefties are willing to do to try to make them like us.

During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.

When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.

"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."

Razorback, you're right on one point: we SHOULD stop supporting Israel. That unfairness is certainly one of the biggest goaders of others in the Middle East to madness - and it's been going on much longer than since the Clinton era. Paul's comment was stupid in context and poorly phrased - but courageously true. It's clear that the Dems were voting for him, of course. And the Mormons were voting for Romney, too. But props to Fox for reporting the results anyway.

They are like that crazy astronaut lady that drove 12 hours from Houston to Orlando to stalk her ex-lover's mistress - she wore diapers so that she wouldn't have to stop to go to the bathroom

I don't have to wizz whenever there is a lie that needs to be corrected.

Please don't tell me you have jobs. It just isn't possible. You post every 3 minutes for freaking hours. You're both as big a junky as your hero Rush.

razorback -- what are you and zouk, zombies? you don't even stop to go to the bathroom for like 9 hours? and zouk by the way today is tinfoil hate squad, trotsky and concerned dem, if everyone did not know that. these guys have the worse case of blog addiction I have ever seen. Sick, sick.

Dems will never agree to a Fox debate. The only statistics you need to know about Fox is that their viewers are the least informed and voted for George Bush in higher numbers than the Republican Party did as a whole. They are not a news organization. They are an arm of the Republican Party.

roo - Thanks for that refreshingly objective comment. I see that some of the posters here today cannot set aside their partisanship long enough to acknowledge that the crew at Fox would do an equally professional and informative debate with the dems. Too bad; it would've been worth watching for many millions of voters.

98% of armed criminals believe strongly in gun control.

the other two percent likes a challenge.

Bsimon - you got no gun? any valuables? what's your address, I'll come right over.

OK, most amusing of all is the Libs admiration of ron Paul based solely on his war stance. did they hear the part about eliminating government? that would effectively end the Democrat party. they ridiculed bob dole for wanting to cut education but now they have a champion. single issues voters - like leaves in the wind. i think all you Dems shouold vote for Ron Paul - IN the DEM primary. Oh the irony is dripping.

A vegitarian environmentalist, after complaining about cow flatulance and its harm to the environment, once asked Ron White what he was doing for the environment.

He said, "I am eating the cows."

"Guns are merely one possible tool for defense"

Yes, but it is hard to carry an attack dog with you to the store.

just like a pig to come to a knife fight armed with a gun.

When the hooligans are thinking about hitting my house with a 12 gauge, or bsimon's with a large knife and his handy brass knuckles, I am pretty sure about where the hooligans will be visiting.

Republican debate question:
What will you do to stop the enemy from attacking us?

Democrat debate questions:
Who does your hair?

ron paul is a winner...he has a fraction of the money of the other contenders, and held the lead in voted=s for the majority of the program eventually getting 2nd behind romney----the media is smearing ron paul because he wants to free americans by getting rid of the thieves in the IRS and the oppressive expensive and incapable homeland security--he said research guliani and you'll see he is a crook---not too mention ron paul wants to end the war-- you guys need to do some serious research and not trust the mainstream media so much---ron paul was in the army, he's a doctor and he has more political experiance than any of the other candidates and he has always voted consistently

This WaPo dark side debate has gotten silly.

The lefties on here seem to be trying to prove that WaPo is in fact on the dark side.

This is the essential problem of the new leftwing internet moonbats: If they disagree with someone on part of one issue, they become part of the dark side. Even if they generally agree with the WaPo on most issues, if a liberal moonbat disagrese with them on part of one issue, they become part of the dark side.

They disagree with Lieberman on a few issues, and they become instant haters, despite the fact that Lieberman agrees with them 80 or 90% of the time. This attitude, if used against all of the Dems in Congress, might just save the Repubs bacon in 2008, despite the unpopularity of Bush and the war.

Fox did a fine job on the debate. It was well-executed and had exactly the substance that Republican supporters needed to make their decisions (for example the oft-mentioned "challenging of positions" was only wrt. more moderate positions.) The "independent" voter probably gained little.

Had they also done the Democratic debate, it would have also had exactly the substance Republican supporters needed.

Walter W writes
"In the interest of truth in packaging, I think we should rename "gun-free zones" to "defenseless zones.""

That would not be truth. Guns are merely one possible tool for defense.

What a sad line-up of complete reactionary non-thinking losers. Rudy's response to Ron Paul was something you would expect from a sixth grader. Does this man understand anything about history? Gee, I guess the foreign policy of a superpower has NOTHING to do with whether we are hated in the world or not. You would have to be bat-sh*t crazy to not at least think that Paul might have a point. Oh, but I guess those rabid RNC nutballs down South only clap when you talk about how cool it is to torture people or when you make stupid scripted cracks about John Edwards. I suppose if you want the Neanderthal vote, you need to run a knuckle-dragging candidate!

Oh, and Romney sucks!

So probably the best "correct" temperature is the one that God has graciously given us, with all of its natural cycles, season peaks and valleys, sun-spot highs and sun-spot lows.

But since most greenies seemingly don't believe in God, they want to 'control' the earth's thermostat and insist on all these ridiculous carbon footprint schemes in order to fulfill their true ultimate goal: to force socialism on our nation....with them in control of more than just the thermostat.

REMEMBER 20% of Global Warming is caused by Large Animal Flatulence. Someone send a telegram to PETA telling them the answer to Global Warming is to EAT MORE MEAT!

What an experience it was. This show of wannabe Stooges for the Plutocracy on display was more unbelievably shameless conduct than substance. Rushing to outdo the others in terms of Rambo macho and red-blooded patriotism (especially when Paul gave a plausible reason for 9-11 and the other nine went ballistic), each did all but kneel down and grovel in front of the cameras in a sycophantic appeal to those well-heeled patrons whom they are so anxious to serve as lapdogs. It was, well, a total lack of any semblance of dignity and self-respect on display. The audience in place was a real sample of the hootin' and hollerin' denizens about whom thinking citizens have heard, especially as to the way things are in South Carolina, one of the worst of the Bible Belt's worst. It fully represented the assortment of Dupes and other forms of the the mentally challenged so loyal to the Fox Noise Channel and its shameless propagandists. There were large cheers and prolonged applause at remarks about the Edwards haircuts and the name Hillary which brings such joy to the Plutocracy, because its Stooges all across the Country and right there on the stage at last night's fun house are doing so well at bamboozling the rubes into cheering and voting against themselves. I failed to detect in the crowd the sound of Bible-thumping thunder or the swish of flag-waving or the rebel cries of joy and praising of Jesus for this onstage bunch, one of whom awash with sponsored TV money may be bought and sold to the Country just as was the semiliterate buffoon now occupying the office with whom we have been burdened for entirely too long. Apparently, the Dupes chose instead of Bibles, flags, and rebel yells, the loud and frenzied applause at the red-meat images of "them libruls." McCain is so desperate that here he stood, facing the very characters whose whisper campaign of vicious slander in this State, orchestrated by the said buffoon and his henchmen just ruined him. It was political mayhem on him in 2000. It seems all is forgiven as he panders and hugs and sucks up to those who attacked him and his family so outrageously. In sum, the whole Nation was able to see just what kind of characters can be found throughout a bland State in which many of us would not voluntarily live. The Fox gang must have felt right at home with those vacuous folks sorely lacking in critical thought who swallow whole the content of Fox Noise and their star propangandists and who showed up in force to cheer for them. It will be no surprise if the beauties will want next to appear in good ole Alabama, another bastion of right-winger targeting for harvesting benighted, vulnerable Dupes who are willing and anxious to cheer and vote against themselves like the rest of their gullible brothers and sisters in Dupedom South who share the same views.

I challenge any liberal on gun control to post the following sign in their yard:

THIS HOUSE IS A
GUN FREE ZONE

I might post one myself, and when the hooligan came throught the door and saw the 12 gauge, my only response to the confused look on his face would be I LIED.

Anything you say is irrelevant if it goes against my point. that is how Dem logic works. get used to it.

"that's right - fundy muslims do. but fundy christians hate gays, muslims and atheists. so what's your point?"

My point is there are maybe 10,000 extremists muslims for every 1 Christian suicide bomber.

razorback asks:

> "So RP, the WaPo has gone over to the dark side. The WaPo endorsed Carter over Reagan, Mondale over Reagan, Dukakis over Bush, Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Gore over Bush, and Kerry over Bush.

Just when did the WaPo go over to the dark side?"

False logic...but cute.

Endorsing Democrats prior to 9-11 is irrelevant...but you knew that, right? The WP led the cheerleading for the Iraq debacle. You are surely not denying this? Endorsing Kerry is another irrelevency.

Kerry was for the war, in bed with the neocons and that's why he lost an election that was his for the taking. "Me too, only better" wasn't a winner.

Now let's turn to gun control laws. What do Virginia Tech's 32 murders, Columbine High School's 13 murders, Jonesboro Westside Middle School's five murders, Germany's Gutenberg High School's 16 murders, the murder of 14 legislators in Zug, Switzerland, and the murder of eight city council members in a Paris suburb all have in common? Answer: All the murders were committed in "gun-free zones." So a reasonable question is: Does legislation creating gun-free zones prevent murder and mayhem?

In 1970, Israel adopted a policy to arm teachers and parents serving as school aids with semi-automatic weapons. Attacks by gunmen at Israeli schools have ceased. At Appalachian Law School in Virginia, a gunman who had already murdered three people was stopped from further carnage by two armed students. Gun possession stopping crime is not atypical, though it goes unreported by the media. According to various research estimates, from 764,000 to as many as 2.5 million crimes are prevented by armed, law-abiding people either warning a criminal that they're armed, brandishing their weapon or shooting a criminal. In the interest of truth in packaging, I think we should rename "gun-free zones" to "defenseless zones."

About Rudy and Paul:

CC and the WaPo or any other media outlet didn't confuse the issue between Rudy and Paul. It is all the debate crowd's fault.

The crowd gasped when Paul seemingly blamed the US for 9/11. The moderator gave Paul an opportunity to explain, and the crowd gapsed again when Paul didn't retreat. Then Rudy made his statement, and the crowd gave the largest applause of the night.

If this debate was before the Dailey Kos annual meeting, there would have been cheers for Paul, and gasps or even boos for Rudy.

The reason Rudy was declared the victor in the exchange is not because WaPo decided he was right. It is because in a debate for the Republican nomination, the Republican view of the exchange is what is important, and the Republican crowd sided with Rudy. (Had they been debating for a Dailey Kos medal, WaPo would have declared Paul the winner). And by the way, I agree with Rudy on this one.

I am trying to resist. Trying hard. am I down to one post every 7 minutes yet? I will go to Kos and find something to paste here. I'll be back.

razorback: Well, didn't the reporter who wrote this article, Cillizza, do just that to Paul? Hold him down? Sure seems like it to me. And that's where WaPo's enabling behavior towards Bush's war comes in to play. This columnist*blogger*pundit went out of his way to slam Paul...why is that? Is it so WaPo won't have to answer for what they've done, mainly creating hysteria for a not-needed war, using *proof* from the WH that wasn't vetted? They didn't do their jobs. And look at the outcome.
They need to apologize for letting down this country, and the people who live in it and who expect the media to vet lies from people in power. They were complicit in the run up to the war in Iraq, and they need to fess up. Otherwise they are a joke when compared to true and brave American media in other parts of the country.

Giuliani showed himself to eithe be stupid or disingenuous when he twisted Ron Paul's reasonable statement to mean that he "blamed American" for 9/11. As a Republican, I will not vote for Giuliani in the primary or the general. Andy R, a poster below, showed himself to be considerably dumber than Giuliani. Scary.

"The Senate, spending the spring mired in divisive debate on Iraq, sharply rejected legislation Wednesday to cut off money for combat operations after March 2008.
The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold and other liberal Democrats who support taking the drastic step to end the war.
The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance."

Oh no, a real vote. what am I supposed to do with all these poll results???

Harry, Nancy, guide us???????

Ron Paul isn't going after voters committed to McCain/Romney/Giuliani, he is going after undecided voters who are against the war. You might claim he lost, but his name and position is mentioned in every story about the debate.

All he needs to do is ask Giuliani for a one-on-one debate. Either he accepts, in which case Rep. Paul gains stature, or he refuses, which makes Giuliani look like a bully and a coward.

Dear God,
please inform me as to the preferred temperature of the Earth. there are many souls here who are confused about it. I think if we had a single temperature we could all agree upon, we would have somethig to shoot for. and no fair changing it every couple of thousand years. We are only stupid humans you know.

Love the greens.

I've never seen anyone (Giuliani)so eager to get their butt kicked. I'm sure Hillary would welcome a debate (and make quick work of it) on the economy and monetary policy with Giuliani. But first he's gonna have to revisit Rep. Ron Paul in a debate on U.S. foreign intervention. And while they're at it perhaps they'll bring up how he believes that a president should have the power to imprison anyone he wants without charges or trial (interview w/ Cato president). Can you imagine this guy with above the law executive privileges! Will America really allow Giuliani to succeed the Decider as Fuhrer?

We can only hope that every Dem in the field will adopt the moonbat twinkie and a lawyer approach to terrorists.

"West Nile virus, which is spread by mosquito bites, has infected 23,974 people in confirmed cases since 1999, killing 962, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Birds that once flourished in suburban skies, including robins, bluebirds and crows, have been devastated by West Nile virus, a study found. "

Can we have a do-over on the DDT thing. We greenies tend to drastically over react and ignore the financial and other consequences of our new religion. we outlawed DDT to save birds. no fair.

I just got over global cooling, now there's global warming and it's my fault. what gives, it's hard to keep up.

Nearly evert candidate with the exception of McCain endorsed the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" or use of torture on terrorist suspects. Unbelieveable!

One thing is for certain. After last night's debate, I am proud to be a registered independent. I can't imagine having to defend any of these people. Though I disagree with much of what Ron Paul says, he stood out not only as the lone true conservative, but the only one on that stage who didn't try to push fear as a political issue. Why is it that the party that is supposed to be the toughest and strongest is constantly reminding us to be afraid of bogeymen? And ole Rudy is a joke, milking 9-11 worse than Bush ever did. We're supposed to think that he was big and tough for walking the streets of NYC on 9-11, but does anyone remember that his WTC office caught on fire and later fell? He was in the streets because he didn't have an office anymore!!

rdf: Someone referenced a very nefarious sinister plot about WaPo holding Ron Paul down. Of course, no evidence in support of the plot was offered.

For accurate info on the "debate" last night go to any cable news outlet. {JOKE]. I see very little difference in the reporting, and to put it midly, each and every one is reporting falsely. To leave out a single word..and infer that someone said something that they actually/factually did not say is what I am trying to get across.

I count about 46 posts from ignorant no name coward today, and that is a slow day for him. In five hours that averages about every six minutes.

congratulations - you win the "get a life" award

all that typing and not a single thing of interest. another award is in order for all talk and no content.

she made an exception for me - drindl

she was willing to do anything to get me out of the house. I am that spiteful

What *plot* are you referring to razorback? The dark side to me is failure of the media to do their jobs, and vet what they're told by the people in power.
They didn't. Don't try to confuse the issue and muddy the waters bringing up Kerry and past elections. This is about enabling Bush to start a war that has made our country less safe, caused countless thousands of deaths, and created terrorists for the next two or three generations who'll hate America. The WaPo was complicit in Bush's not needed war. A war detrimental to the security of these United States...a war in which WaPo helped lead the charge. They failed America and Americans, and they need to apologize on the front page. Except they don't have the balls to do so.

We moonbats have nothing of consequence to offer. Instead we obsess with the lives of our adversaries. Facts and figures escape us, but we do enjoy the cult of personality. that is why we are so good at dishing out insults. It eliminates the expectation that we will say anything of merit.

rdf, so after they went over to the dark side, they endorsed John Kerry for President. Does that mean Kerry is involved in the plot too? Or is this an instance where there Kerry endorsement was just cover for the fact that they had joined the dark side?

MikeB, I thought you left in discuss with us (me?) once before. You just couldn't get enough? At least you didn't make any factual assertions or try to quote me some law, so I don't have to make you a smoking hole.

razorback: "Just when did the WaPo go over to the dark side?"

When they published countless articles in the run up to the Iraq War in support of Bush. WITHOUT verifying that the *evidence* was true. WITHOUT corresponding input from the other side, you know, those folks who told us it would be a disaster.

That's when they went over to the dark side. They failed this country and her people, and they need to apologize.

Blarg, I have been mean to a defensless moonbat, and all you have for me is curiousity about my employment? I am disappointed.

They're all LOSERS.

Posted by: | May 16, 2007 11:29 AM

third post of the day and still going strong. I'll be here all week.

Ron Paul, or anybodyelse, doesn't have to insinuate anything.

From the start this Administration has had an "Our way or the highway!" attitude towards every other country in the World. Any country which disagreed with what this Administration dictated was villified.

Changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries at the U. S. Capitol was indicitive of how little awareness the Republican leadership has of the U. S. role in the New World Order.

Disgarding the Powell Doctrine and totally ignoring the coalition building of Bush 41 are but a couple of examples.

With this Administration's approach the wonder is that more of the World isn't taking shots at us.

No one beats me in moronic posts, not in number or severity.

Is it just me or do all of these Republican types (look at the photo for this forum) look like complete dweebs? I mean, all they need is a pocket protector, a dirty white shirt, and 1960' era pants with cuffs and the picture would be complete for the proytotypical nerd, a collection of 40 year old virgins that still live in their parents basement.

Sorry, Razorback. Sometimes I have work to do, which prevents me from making dozens of posts per day. Are you still insisting that you have a job which you work hard at, and don't have time to blog all day?

'On this blog - the moonbat and hateful rodent mutual admiration society'

I don't understand why you come here zouky, you hate everyone so much. you arrive every day at noon... then stay all day long, among people you profess to hate. what is your problem?

Well arn't we putting a human face on those vicious fundies. Do you really see any legitimate comparison between what your mother believed and what bin Ladin belives?

she made an exception for me -- she didn't actually approve of college, especially for women, but she knew how much i wanted it. she really wanted me to marry right out of high school, like most of my cousins. she was from arkansas.

and i didn't say she wanted me to marry one of my cousins.

Isn't is amusing that the rabid Libs have so much to say about the Republican debate and how certain policies need to be changed or discussed. I don't recall all those moonbats bothering to criticize the empty Dem debate in the same way. As if cons care aboutn the thinking of the hateful leftists who would rather get us killed than agree with anyone.

On this blog - the moonbat and hateful rodent mutual admiration society is in full swing. the rest of the country has left them to rot. If you want more of nothing - vote D. but you will get more taxes, more regulation, more useless laws, more spending, more surrendering, more delays, more posturing, more press fawning.

Vote D to get less choice, less safety, less intrusion, less education, less retirement money, less health care, less military.

the options are simple, predictable and obvious. why fight about it, if you want big government who runs everything and takes all your money, vote D. Otherwise, vote R. Same as it has always been.

drindl, that is very nice, I guess that fundie wasn't against education after all, was she?

'How many posts am I up to now? '

good question -- 100? 10 times more than the rest of us put together? you sure work hard at your 'job'...

"It all started when Paul was asked how September 11 changed American foreign policy. "Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?" Paul answered. "They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years..."

Direct quote, check the transcript.

"Ron Paul (Texas)... insinuated the United States had provoked terrorists into launching the Sept. 11 attacks"

That's trying to equate Paul's comment with Bush's "bring 'em on", though its entirely different.

my mother always thought i was wonderful. first one in the family to go to college. she was very proud, although of course concerned for my eternal soul.

drindle says:

"I can just hear your tiny brains exploding..."

You can hear over the juju beads rattling against the bong? You mean the ouiji board isn't talking to you? What about the voices in your head?

And for the record, I am just fine with the appointment. Whatever you think you heard didn't come from me.

Richard: Ron Paul DID NOT say what you are trying to infer. Check Fox news politics clip/debate number 6 and you can see and hear the WHOLE thing. The good thing about this is that it is on tape and anyone can check it out.

"Ron Paul (Texas)... insinuated the United States had provoked terrorists into launching the Sept. 11 attacks"
-- Utterly false. Bad reporting. Libel. It's not in the quote.

Blarg:

I am being uncivil with drindle, who is always uncivil. Are you going to jump on me for that?

How many posts am I up to now? The only thing you found worthy of comment was about Fox News? I know you want to take it to me because I called drindle what she is. I guess that means you found nothing in my many posts to complain about.

too bad for drindl's parents, all that work and no reward. therapy indeed.

'WP: Bush taps skeptic of Iraq build-up as war czar. I remember his name as having written a book on US intervention --- "Improving National Capacity to Respond to Complex Emergencies: The U.S. Experience," published by the Carnegie commission on preventing deadly conflict in April 1998 -- and note that his wife, Jane Holl Lute, is a noted humanitarian expert, poli sci PhD from Stanford, currently serving as the assistant secretary general of the United Nations for peacekeeping. '

I don't have a problem with this guy, for once, seems like a good choice. But I imagine it will drive you wingers crazy that his wife works for the UN in 'peacekeeping'

I can just hear your tiny brains exploding...

Ron Paul didn't mention 9/11 at all. 3,400 deaths refers to the Iraq War not to the World Trade Center.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272719,00.html
"Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq.

"They are delighted that we're over there because Usama bin Laden has said, 'I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time they've killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary," he continued.

You shouldn't lash out just because you had an unpleasant childhood, drindle. Work it out in therapy. A freaking animal?? How magnanimous, how rational. You have your own little mean industry going.

Maybe you were a different kind of fundie. Did you wear long skirts and braids? Maybe your parents were just trying to keep you way from Woodstock.

Because it attempts to use negative association the way that McCarthy did in the 1950s.. McCarthy the republican. It goes way back with you folks.

'What a laugh. Muslims hate gays, christians, and atheists.'

that's right - fundy muslims do. but fundy christians hate gays, muslims and atheists. so what's your point?

rufus1133: I have yet to find what Ron Paul said was incorrect. We may have an opinion that differs from what he actually said, but in no way can I find ANYWHERE that his statement/opinion was not what a great number of folks are agreeing with.

razorback writes
"Because it attempts to use negative association the way that McCarthy did in the 1950s... Its just another version of the irrational, angry, red faced, spittle flying Bush/Hitler chant that is typical of bitter irratonal old leftist haters."

Couldn't the same criticisms be applied to both sides? There's the 'fascist bush' chant and there's the 'treasonous appeasers' chant. Sounds like two sides of the same coin to me.

I h ave to laugh when i republican calls me 'mean and ignorant' the party that is more divisive than any since the civil war, that has made an industry out of hating democrats and accusing them of treason and murder and every conceivable evil [listen to coulter or limbuagh or hannity] they can't get through 5 minutes without bashing us. And you are a freaking animal the way you attack everyone that disagrees with you, so stop your sanctimonious BS.

I was raised as a fundy and I know very well what they think. They want governments to be based on the Bible -- their Bible. they don't believe in science, and for their educational views--why do you think so many home school? So their kids would be exposed to modern ideas.

"Muslims do not "hate our freedom", but rather, they hate our policies"

What a laugh. Muslims hate gays, christians, and atheists. Muslim restrict freedom of speech, they do not allow women to drive or vote. The ability to be a lesbian, christian, business owner is a freedom, not a policy.

Nice to see all the comments favoring Ron Paul's line of inquiry on the Whys and Wherefores of 9/11 and subsequent--what the enemy is thinking, saying. It was a breath of reality, if only for a few seconds, in this tiresome display of platitudes and pandering. When will some of the Demo Candidates take this line of thought up besides Kusinich?

I personally, applauded Ron Paul - what guts - straight talk - that is what we want -forget the political roam around - that's why he came in as second on the Fox text vote - pay attention candidates !
When the commentators ask a question and the candidate starts roaming around the answer, they should be interrupted -the candidate that gives a straight layman's answer will be the next President of the U.S., leader of the free world - and this time, no more "my way or no way"
And where was the control center in NYC? G not too smart there - didn't the terriorists pay us a visit there some years back - I watched last night because I was interested in promoting G but when I observed that he repeatedly skirted around the questions, I made my decision right then - not him for President -
McCain a good guy, no doubt, but he supports the war even when the American people have said "no more" - another 4 years of war!! The statistics always name a number of soldiers killed - start reciting the number of soldiers mammed - no arms, legs, etc - and BROKE - we talk about sacrifices we make - I do believe it is not us but our soldiers and their families - what the rest of us sacrifice is our pockets -
Let's pay attention and not say someone won because the got mad - pay attention - don't let the media/commentators make up your minds as they have done in the past - our future is at stake -

"Under Islamic law, homosexuality is unlawful, a kind of illness that needs to be treated," said Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsur, an MP in the Israeli parliament and a member of the movement.'

how is this different from the republican party?

here is some proof of republican evil:

WASHINGTON, DC--In the latest in a long series of ominous public pronouncements, the Department of Evil released a statement Monday demanding that all residents of the United States must die.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/dept_of_evil_all_of_you_must_die

Surely McCain should be listed amongst the losers after he spoke out against torture. Soon after, when Giuliani and Romney disagreed with McCain, the torture-loving Fox audience applauded loudly.

Ron Paul understands why we are stuck in the Iraq quaqmire. There is plenty of evidence to back up his assertions of blowback because of U.S. foreign policy. According to the September, 2004 report of the Defense Science Board, a Federal Advisory Committee "established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense", here are some salient points that Congressman Paul has made from time to time over the last decade: 1. Muslims do not "hate our freedom", but rather, they hate our policies. 2. In the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. 3. The dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. Fighting groups protray themselves as the true defenders of the entire Muslim community to broad community support. 4. Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic-namely that the war is all about us.
Obviously Rummy and Rudy did not bother to read the report.

I personally, applauded Ron Paul - what guts - straight talk - that is what we want -forget the political roam around - that's why he came in as second on the Fox text vote - pay attention candidates !
When the commentators ask a question and the candidate starts roaming around the answer, they should be interrupted -the candidate that gives a straight layman's answer will be the next President of the U.S., leader of the free world - and this time, no more "my way or no way"
And where was the control center in NYC? G not too smart there - didn't the terriorists pay us a visit there some years back - I watched last night because I was interested in promoting G but when I observed that he repeatedly skirted around the questions, I made my decision right then - not him for President -
McCain a good guy, no doubt, but he supports the war even when the American people have said "no more" - another 4 years of war!! The statistics always name a number of soldiers killed - start reciting the number of soldiers mammed - no arms, legs, etc - and BROKE - we talk about sacrifices we make - I do believe it is not us but our soldiers and their families - what the rest of us our sacrificing is in our pockets -
Let's pay attention and not say someone won because the got mad - pay attention - don't let the media/commentators make up your minds as they have done in the past - our future is at stake -

2008 can't come fast enough; back into the wilderness for the GOP!! Take a few decades to think about what you've done....

Yes, I would. My position that Fox isn't biased actually stemmed from the 80s and 90s protests that CNN was biased. I never saw any real evidence.

There was piddling around the edges of proof, like who gets defined as a "moderate" and who gets defined as an "ultra conservative" and the seldom is anyone defined as a "ultra liberal". The ideology of most reporters is to the left. All of that is good and well and probably true, but the fact is when I watched stories on CNN they were pretty much the same stories I saw anywhere else.

When Fox News started it did suck. Their sunday show was just a compilation of interviews for the week, they had no live sunday news show. I flip channels. I watch them all, ABC NBC CBS MSNBC FOX CNN CNBC, PBS, there isn't a dimes worth of difference in the actual presentation of the news between all of them.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Vast areas of snow in Antarctica melted in 2005 when temperatures warmed up for a week in the summer in a process that may accelerate invisible melting deep beneath the surface, NASA said on Tuesday.

A new analysis of satellite data showed that an area the size of California melted and then re-froze -- the most significant thawing in 30 years, the U.S. space agency said.

Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, where ice sheets have been breaking apart.

Re Rudy Giuliani, here is the link to the NY Mag article

http://nymag.com/news/features/31812/

Ya, and they hate us for our freedom's right? ignorant people. The truth hurts

Maybe Giuliani should look at Switzerland. it doesn't run around invading countries, installing dictators and stealing the resources of other countries. And terrorists don't seem to be bombing buildings in that country.

bsimon:

Because it attempts to use negative association the way that McCarthy did in the 1950s, despite the fact that US fundies don't support violence, do support the notion of progress through education, do support the first amendment, etc.

Its just another version of the irrational, angry, red faced, spittle flying Bush/Hitler chant that is typical of bitter irratonal old leftist haters.

No, Razorback, I don't reference anything. I quote the chief of the Fox News London bureau when he describes that his channel presents stories with a conservative bias. Scott Norvell works for the news division, and he says "our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories".

This is about as unambiguous as it gets. I could cite studies by various organizations; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias has a good list. But that evidence isn't nearly as damning as a quote from a high-ranking Fox executive. If someone from CNN joked about clubbing conservatives to death and bragged that his station is honest about their point of view, would you give them a pass?

"Under Islamic law, homosexuality is unlawful, a kind of illness that needs to be treated," said Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsur, an MP in the Israeli parliament and a member of the movement.

"Our Arab society cannot tolerate this phenomenum, to allow it to become an overt part of our daily life," the lawmaker added.

If Giuliani were President of Switzerland he'd get them into a war.

No, Razorback, I don't reference anything. I quote the chief of the Fox News London bureau when he describes that his channel presents stories with a conservative bias. Scott Norvell works for the news division, and he says "our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories".

This is about as unambiguous as it gets. I could cite studies by various media outlets; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias has a good list. But that evidence isn't nearly as damning as a quote from a high-ranking Fox executive. If someone from CNN joked about clubbing conservatives to death and bragged that his station is honest about their point of view, would you give them a pass?

Razorback writes
"Another mean ignorant statement by a mean ignorant person."

But drindl's statement, while phrased somewhat harshly, is factually accurate. The fundamentalist Christians I know believe that their faith is the one true faith & actively recruit others to their faith to 'save them'. Their goals are to convert everyone to their faith to save them from the devil. What's mean or ignorant about pointing that out?

Ron Paul is the only one that has a chance of winning the presidency. The war will be the main issue, and the winner must be anti-war. So if the GOP wants to put a conservative in office in 2008, they must endorse Ron Paul.

Dem science (12:00 PM)

You wrote "Climatologist Fired For Exposing Warming Myths
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was recently dismissed from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains.

no facts please, we're Dems"

Mr. Albright was not "dismissed" he was stripped of his title.

There were no climate myths. There was a disagreement amongst colleagues regarding the percentage of snow pack shrinkage, not glaciers, in the Cascades.

Mr. Albright was stripped of his title for failing to consult with his colleagues prior to dissemenating his theories. He remains in his research position at The University of Washington.

Perhaps you should check YOUR facts prior to posting. Or is spin more important than fact?

The GOP debate: 10 losers, ome more ridiculous that the totrure.

One guy makes a joke and it is now fact. sounds like your global warming facts, your war facts, your budget and economic facts and all the resat of the slanted, invented Lib facts.

Fact : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

I know you Libs will have to wrestle with the concept of objective, quickly followed by the utter insurmountable difficulty with reality but, one guys wandering views in an interview do not constitute fact.

Try again.

Blarg:

You reference some personalities from OPINION shows. What about bias in news coverage? Name a story that has been covered differently in a substantive way. Do you likewise accept the assertion that BBC is biased to the left?

GOP pro-life(and anti-child) and sexual orientation bigots who are Romney Supporters have realize that while the political calculations have cause Romney to switch to pro-life in the primary, the calculations in the general elections are much different. I predict a reversal when he reads the polls and realized that 60+% of the electorate are pro-choice in the first trimester at least.

Razorback writes
"bsimon, you need a more rational way to sort out the "fundies"."

Perhaps. I find the parallels between the groups compelling. Someone else posted earlier (possibly on the prior topic) about how the fundies tend to go all hypocritical when they really lose it - an observation which seems to hold true for both varieties (broadly grouped).

Alright people. This is my last post. on this site. No more Rufus1133 of JKRish.

CC is not concerned with the issues that face this country. He is following the O'REilly's and Coulter of the world. Stir up controvesy and watch what happens. The three posts saying Rudy did himslef good with that garbage ruined it for me. YOu had 30% of right wing fox viewers say Paul won. That was before Fox started bad mouthing their own poll because they didn't liek the results.

This site is a waste of my time. The trolls are here to divide and conquer, sabatoge the debate. They want to sabatoge this country. CC is helping with the lies and propoganda. I'm not wasting my time here anymore.

HOW TO YOU EXPLAIN TO A BLIND PERSON WHAT THE COLOR BLUE LOOKS LIKE?.

How can you know what you've never know. Good luck to all. May god bless. Sorry for what I tried to do to this site. I was tried to hel