I don't think you are a Libroooool. I think you are crazy. Your water story made that point for both of us. You think I am crazy because I don't want to be watched by big brother constantly. To each their own I guess. I would kill people that ate their children's brains. I would try and get them all before they got me. Maybe I am missing out and the brains are amazing to eat. Like Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction...... I'll never @#%$@#%$ know. By the way, quit using words like de jure. I don't have a damn clue what that means, just inhaled a couple of pounds of bondo dust so I don't know if I ever did.
Sorry. It's the counterpart of de facto... like what the law is on the books (de jure) versus how it actually works in real life (de facto). As for eating brains: I don't think that I would. But I don't think that everyone else would be, either, so it's hard to put myself in that position. Ed O.
Well, when we pull all the troops back home, we'll have a bunch of urban-warfare vets with nothing to do... YAY ISOLATIONISM! Fix Us First!
Rejecting single player health care... Either they're afraid they really will ruin the best system in the world, it's political suicide to do something so radical so fast (without reading the bills), or they figure the course of time will kill off the private sector industry. Regarding Obama being a Nazi. I don't think so. But if his actual policies have not been even truly liberal let alone socialist, what are they? National Socialism sure does seem to fit (not talking atrocities and militantism, but more the health kick, rigid regulation/control of industries, the hint of socialism...). This is quite accurate. While I've been documenting the decline in Obama's job approval rating (down to 53% Gallup, 48% Rasmussen), I don't agree with your assessment here. It's not exactly clear it has as much to do with "who he really is -- an extreme leftist" as much as a few of other factors: 1) He's not feeding enough raw meat to his ATM, the loony left. 2) His policies are radical left (or right, for either the metaphor works) turns. 3) The people see enormous budgets and massive deficits and no progress in their own sphere of awareness. 4) The people see further massive spending on the horizon, but simply don't believe in the value of it. 5) The people are certainly to the right of Obama's policies and people that surround him. And one could argue his ratings are declining because he's simply not getting things done. He's not leading congress to get things done on his timeline or even articulating a plan that congress is rubber stamping. For everyone else: I saw Beck on Fox this morning and he emphatically said those things about Obama. I thought it was over the top, but the blurb of an article posted in this thread about it doesn't put it at all into context. What Beck was saying was that Obama blindly assumed the white cop was in the wrong, without knowing the facts. He was mocking the more modern day civil rights leaders who play the race card at the drop of a hat, by dropping the race card himself. I didn't find it amusing or even all that well reasoned - he could have simply pointed out (like I did) about Obama blinding assuming the white cop was in the wrong... I spend a lot of time fact checking things people write in threads of political nature. The only thing I see in Stein's article of any interest to me is his questioning of Obama's academic credentials. All the rest is rehashed and I've come to quite different conclusions (Rev. Wright isn't racist, he's leftist and anti-capitalist, for example). Which leads to this: If the emperor has no clothes, someone has to come out and say it. Finally, they put up cameras in Honolulu for a while and then took them down again after the people complained.
I had a feeling. Must be weird when they start training you to be able to take any side of an argument based on who is paying.
