Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - just more expensive...

" Remember their victory, as a minority party, over President Bush's attempt to reform Social Security with private investment accounts?"

The Democrats position on SS reflected overwhelming popular opinion just as doing something to improve the economy has wide popular support.

Please keep up the obstruction -- the Democrats are loving it.

AB surely does not recall that when GW said the SS system needs an overhall, the democrats said flat out, "it is fine". What a putz.

Obama's list of being ineffectual is growing. He will become quickly the worst president ever. ww

"just as doing something to improve the economy has wide popular support."

Let us know when they actually start doing that, instead of spending completely insane amounts of money on Democratic pork projects that won't do a damned thing.

At least we got that stupid "resod the Mall" thing killed...

1 down 207 to go

In exchange for 335 million for sexual stimulation!!!

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]

"Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

"The Democrats position on SS reflected overwhelming popular opinion just as doing something to improve the economy has wide popular support."

Yeah? Where'd ya pick up that nugget? The Dimocrats were proud to stand and cheer when President Bush mentioned the failure to modify SS. Once the baby-boomers hit in greater numbers over the next couple of years, they won't be cheering any longer. They're going to be answering to a large number of pissed off elderly people who also happen to vote.

barack is doing great so far. im so glad hes our president, and that the country can stop moving backwards as it did under bu$h

GO-BAMA!

=]

barack is doing great so far.

You can speak in cheap, vacuous and sweeping platitudes like Obama, or you can actually point out exactly how or what he's done that's so great so far.

I won't hold my breath.

I will answer for Peabody: Obama surrendered to the terrorists last week. Yipee. We are now all vulnerable. He is speaking directly to the Arabs now telling them we shouldn't dictate to them. HMM! Overthrow our embassy, kill marines, USS Cole, WTC x2 and WE dictate to them?

This guy is simply a joke. The Peter Principle in action. ww

willie, he did no such thing. its a silly thing to say. giving detainees (theyre not even prisoners, theyre just detainees) a basic due process surrenders nothing to anybody. you need stop giving in to your fear reflex and realize that there is an answer to terror besides operating gulags

Obama capitulated to the lefts and some European demands. The better course would have been to be thoughtful and investigate what options are available. He doesn't even know what he is going to do with them because their own home countries won't take them. Plus, I am sure, as you are also, the islamofacists took note of this first crack in our will to see this through. You dress it up in your mind any way you think makes you happy. I live in the real world where some muslims want my family and I dead because they do not like my way of life. You think because you are a liberal, they will give you a pass. Naive at best. ww

Question for the Obama supporters: How is it "urgently needed stimulus" if most of the money doesn't even get spent in the next 2 *years*?

Be specific and show some pride in your own intellect by answering the question directly, and without using any insults or the word "Bush." This question is about Obama's stimulus package and how the money is to be distributed.

pea[brain]3000 - "you need stop giving in to your fear reflex and realize that there is an answer to terror besides operating gulags"

And you need to quit blathering Code Pink/Amnesty International talking points.

Either that or explain how Gitmo detainees getting over 4000 calories each day and gaining weight via Halal meals, having a 20,000 book library to select from, having modern medical equipment that surpasses many clinics and hospitals you have access to, having visits by medical personnel once per week (as opposed once a month for their guards) is anything analogous to a "gulag."

JimK ... are you holding your breath?

P.S. pea[brain]3000 - You also need to answer this question.

Marc: not so much. :) But hey, if enough people ask direct questions, even the most fervent Obama fans will eventually have to start thinking about the answers, or they will twist and turn and avoid, demonstrating proof that they don't care one whit about the things they claim to care about.

I will simply continue to ask these people pointed, direct questions and we'll see what happens.

"or they will twist and turn and avoid, demonstrating proof that they don't care one whit about the things they claim to care about."

Is that part of your pea[brain]3000 biography?

It should be.

a basic due process surrenders nothing to anybody.

Yes, it does. It extends and surrenders habaes corpus to people who are a.) NOT citizens of the United States and, b.) sworn enemies of the United States and the destruction of it and the murder of its citizens. How anyone doesn't see that as bastardizing our Constitution or whoring out the Bill of Rights to our enemies, is living in alternate and very FUBAR reality.

marc - you dont make points anywhere near the realm of reality

i often wonder what exactly is wrong with you

may you slowly but surely heal, now that the fog of the neocon ideology is lifting

jim, i as most any american am opposed to the whole bailout mentality. generally speaking though i think some kind of stimulus is necessary right now, and only because i believe the entire economy is on the brink of major collapse. the only reason we havent been slammed into a 1929 style crash is because of the promise of intervention

whatever bailout is to occur, there are bound to be some frustrating issues. in many cases failure will be rewarded, looters will profit, capitalism will be stressed. but this country is so vulnerable right now (and fine, lets not bother blaming the obvious cause) that if we lose our position as a global financial markets leader, or as the trading currency of choice for the global petroleum market, or just forgo the solvency of the supporting corporate entities that so much of our economy is dependant upon right now, then we're screwed

the bailout/stimulus sucks. going without it would be way worse, and dont forget that bu$h was solidly behind the need for it

" The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned"

Hey all the congressmen, mayors and governors have to make sure that they are protected when they are out screwing around. Cant be too careful nowadays.

pea[brain]3000 - "marc - you dont make points anywhere near the realm of reality"

Well there's yer problem right there.

Direct questions of you that are pointedly related to statements you make are somehow twisted into not being reality.

But we knew that from your very first days here. And a prime reason why you should be sent to the dust bin of Wizbang history. (Or given a like-minded place to reside - Wizbang Blue)

More horsesh*t from pea[brain]3000 - "the bailout/stimulus sucks. going without it would be way worse, and dont forget that bu$h was solidly behind the need for it"

What's the title of this posting?

What is the timeframe and what has it to do with anything related to Bush being "solidly behind"it?

marc - you dont make points anywhere near the realm of reality

You're like a little dog that yaps a lot, but has no substance--amply evident by your posts in this thread.

I'm still not holding my breath that you can support your original idea that Obama's done a "great job so far".

marc - re: the bailout, im directly answering jim

the adults are talking. you oughtta just go play ball outside

=]

pea[brain]3000 - "marc - re: the bailout, im directly answering jim"

Goody for you, let me know when you get around to giving precise and provable details on Gitmo being a "gulag."

BTW pea[brain]3000 - "jim, i as most any american am opposed to the whole bailout mentality. generally speaking though i think some kind of stimulus is necessary right now,"

Yeah, if you mean by "most any American" the 37% against the Barack Hussein Obama bailout.

But please explain how that's possible to be classified as "most any American[s]" when 52% favor it?

Obama's list of being ineffectual is growing. He will become quickly the worst president ever. ww

Nah, Dubya set the bar to high for that. I don't think Obama could reach that level of ineptude if he tried.

Dubya's incompetence is like DiMaggio's hitting streak--something we'll never see again in our lifetime. Well, unless Palin was somehow elected.

marc - you need so much help just to understand what people are actually saying, let alone the issues themselves. sigh...

obviously most any american is against simply bailing out failed co's. they need to be conviced, which in this case as your own number shows, many have been. simple as that. you are trying too hard to parse every single word looking for trip-up opportunities and as a result you are serving up some very dumb challenges. can you dig a little deeper into actual issues if im gonna waste any more keyboard time on you?

gitmo has been a judicial black hole. what else do you call detaining people without charges for 7 years, permitting torture, and permitting hearsay evidence to be introduced. thats as bad as it gets. think theyre all guilty, do ya? many hundreds have been set free after exhaustive efforts to bring charges resulted in diddly squat. im glad you arent in chage of anything, and now, neither is your glassy-eyed faction of neocon extremists

JMC -

I think we're seeing the setup of an epic, epic fail here in just the first week. Frankly, I ain't feeling good at all about it either. The bailout - damn, just pass the BBQ sauce. I like roast pork as much as anyone, but there's WAY too much at this banquet - an awful lot is going to rot before it'll do anyone any good.

And what's with him and the White House press corps? I mean, his first TV interview goes to an Arabic network? WTF? Couldn't find anyone syncophantic enough at MSNBC, CNN, ABC or CBS?

I'm wanting the guy to succeed in keeping the country and economy healthy, but the stimulus looks to me like handing an alcoholic a gift card for 5 bottles of MacCallan's...

Maybe he's got a clue - but it's not looking much like it. It seems more like he's desperate, trying to get something, anything, done fast to the economy - without really worrying about whether it's the right thing to do...

Pea: you did not answer my question. If you believe a bailout is needed and it is URGENTLY NEEDED NOW, then 1. Why aren't you fighting the immense waste, 2. Why isn't the vast majority of the funding due to be spent this or next year?

Give me SPECIFICS on how this stimulus bill - which Obama is trying to get passed in a mad rush without examination by the media or citizenry - is proof that Obama is doing a great job. Use your intellect and defend it, or you could just be honest and call it what it is; a scam designed to waste trillions of dollars via social engineering and blatant vote-buying. I would then ask you, if you were honest enough to admit that, how on earth you could justify defending Obama as doing a great job.

I don't give a crap what Bush supported, BTW. You failed the basic requirement of this question by not being able to resist a shot at him. You also seem to think I care what Bush thought or that I agreed with him. Next time you want to insult someone by telling them the adults are talking? Make sure you are being an adult first.

pea[brain]3000 - "gitmo has been a judicial black hole. what else do you call detaining people without charges for 7 years, permitting torture, and permitting hearsay evidence to be introduced. thats as bad as it gets. think theyre all guilty, do ya? many hundreds have been set free after exhaustive efforts to bring charges resulted in diddly squat. im glad you arent in chage of anything, and now, neither is your glassy-eyed faction of neocon extremists"

Some of what you say is true, but most is BS, and still fails to justify your overblown bombastic rhetoric comparing it to a Gulag.

Go ahead, compare the images taken inside Gitmo to any and all from Germany's gulags.

That aside, what would you do with those now held?

Perhaps the SuperMax prison in Colorado?

If so you better start protesting the ACLU. They have "questions whether a move to the tiny cells at Supermax, where most inmates are kept in solitary confinement 23 hours a day, is fair treatment for suspects awaiting trial."

Peabody has to be impressed with his party using this economic crisis to load more pork for their egos then to help the economy. So proud, huh, Peabuddy?

Obama is a sham. He has no idea what he is doing. ww

"The Democrats position on SS reflected overwhelming popular opinion just as doing something to improve the economy has wide popular support."

At one time smoking cigarettes was overwhelmingly popular too.

Of course improving the economy is popular. Who's against that? But I don't see how throwing my money at abortions or ACORN or - what am I forgetting? - has anything to do with stimulating the economy?

If you were to "improve the economy" I doubt that you would start there, would you AB?

jim - so youre working yourself up into quite a lather over points like who i consider responsible. im still a registered republican who voted for bu$h in 2000 (a mistake i didnt repeat in 04) and my issues arent partisan ones, so chill if you indeed have the self-control

now get clear on what im saying at least: before specifics come into play, im in general favor of a stimulus measure because i think large-scale economic collapse is the alternative we are facing, at a precise point in time where we are most vulnerable to seeing power shifts heading off our shores for good

where specifics are involved, while i know some details, i wont claim to be an expert, nor will i say i have any kind of total faith that the package will be relatively watertight once its finalized, which it is nowhere near being yet. theres a thousand ways they could eff this up. but being as i said persuaded that its prudent to go forward with it, im thankful it isnt mccain and his poor judgement at the helm

This is not a bail out it is nationalization. If you want to know what Obama intends, learn from his past mentors. Frank Davis, Saul Alinsky, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx. Democrats all. Rush said he hoped Obama fails. Any American who believes in our constitution must hope he fails. Why does he insist on bipartisanship? Because he needs the cover when his first 5 year plan goes the way of all 5 years plans.

pea[brain]3000 - "and my issues arent partisan ones, so chill if you indeed have the self-control"

You inccesent use of $ instead of S when spelling Bush and continous use of the term neocon undercuts that thought.

pea[brain]3000 - "im in general favor of a stimulus measure because i think large-scale economic collapse is the alternative we are facing,"

Better check the latest issue of the Wall Street Journal. 250 prominent economists have taken out a full page ad saying the best thing is not to do anything.

lol @ zelsdorf....

Well, it looks like the stimulas plan passed the house despite Republicans almost to a man voting against it.

This is why in my opinion Obama needs to give up on Bi-partsianship. Republicans are against it, and Democrats frankly don't need them. So instead of getting much more spending, which we need, we get a more watered down bill designed to appeal to Republicans who voted aganist it anyway. It's crazy.

With the majority Democrats have, my hope is Obama starts listening to those in the party who say lock the Republicans out from this point forward. We have enough votes to get things through without them and offering them carrots doesn't work. So why shouldn't he just push through the democrats agenda?

my use of the $ is possible precisely because im not partisan. bu$h effed up the party good but im still registered in it for now. next time it will be "decline to state"...

indeed i would like to check out what any and all economists are saying, but i know that many of them are saying a stimulus IS a good idea. the credit crisis alone could cut america down to her knees and even if the stimulus only postponed the inevitable it would be better than what i consider to be the alternative: economic disaster

i dont think a stimulus will happen graft-free, or that any of the pitfalls will be totally avoided. if you support the bu$h war in iraq you do so despite the massive graft happening there with our contractors. thats just one more bitter pill to swallow. the only good news here is the possibility that we're escaping a crash of horrific proportions

jmc - "So instead of getting much more spending, which we need, we get a more watered down bill designed to appeal to Republicans who voted aganist it anyway. It's crazy."

Then we can assume you all for spending YOUR tax dollars for funding ACORN?

$150 million for the Smithsonian?

$54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. That one also JMC?

Absolutely Marc,

Conservatives have certainly proved that they are hostile to things like the arts, infastructure, and education and most exspecially science. That is why it was beyond silly for Obama to water this down at all. Conservativfes are not the people to try bi-parsianship with, they are too fanatical.

"Obama seems at least willing to listen to Republicans."

Obama's brand of "listening" is just for show. Ultimately, his slogan is "my way or the highway", I won, I will trump you.
http://www.rightklik.net/

Obama's brand of "listening" is just for show. Ultimately, his slogan is "my way or the highway", I won, I will trump you.

I certainly hope that's what he does in the future. I think he made a huge mistake by reaching out this time. The best thing Obama could have done was put forth a stimulas package of about twice this and told Republicans he could care less how they feel about.

Hopefully now he will listen to his base.

JMC -

I could go through the list striking out stuff that I'd like to see paid for - but NOT RIGHT NOW when the priority is to get the CIVILIAN sector moving, not bloat government programs until they burst.

Where in heaven's name do you think the money to pay for all this is going to come from? Government doesn't CREATE wealth - it gets the money it spreads around from the private sector. You expand government with all sorts of 'nice to have' stuff, and the programs will be there for a fiscal eternity - and when their budgets run out they'll STILL need to be paid for.

Besides - we HAD an emergency infrastructure bill passed in 2005, to the tune of $286 billion.

The Volokh Conspiracy - Whatever Happened to the Last Big Infrastructure Bill?

These days, we are repeatedly told that we have to pass a massive new infrastructure spending bill in order to fix our "crumbling" roads and bridges. Everyone seems to have forgotten that just three years ago, in August 2005, Congress enacted the biggest federal public works program in American history, spending a massive $286.4 billion on the 2005 highway bill. At that time, President Bush and congressional leaders from both parties told us that the new highway bill was needed to fix our infrastructure problems.

Before passing a new and potentially even bigger infrastructure spending bill, I would just like to know what happened to all that money Congress appropriated for the same purpose back in 2005? If that act succeeded in its purpose, it's not clear why we need another huge federal infrastructure bill now, less than four years later. If it failed, we need to know why.

One reason why the 2005 bill may have failed is that much of the money was spent on various porkbarrel projects, such as the notorious "Bridge to Nowhere," which is the only thing most people now remember from that bill. It's certainly possible that the 2005 money was largely wasted because most of it went to politically connected interest groups and districts rather than genuinely valid infrastructure priorities. But if the 2005 bill indeed failed for that reason, why would we expect a different result this time around?

You gotta buy it now, you can't examine it, you gotta take it on faith that it'll do the job - and the cost is stupendous. Why does this seem like a con that's gonna cost us a hell of a lot more than we're being told?

Jlawson,

The american society of civil engineers estimates we need 1.6 trillion in infastructure improvements... Convinced? I didn't think so.

We could go back and forth on this all night, but we are going to flat-out disagree at the end of the day.

My above point was that the democrats believe, monetary policy has been tried, interest rates are down to zero and banks still aren't lending and the economy is still on life support and getting worse.

My belief is that Keynseian economics, direct government injection into the economy is the only thing that is going to get us out of this mess in the next few years. You think it's too much? fine. I think it's too little. I'm sure you could make a compelling argument, for your point find lots of figures that support it, I'm pretty sure I could do the same. Then we will question each others figures. find more figures, question each others sources and so on and so on, and at the end of the day come right back to basically where we started. I'm not trying to convince you the stimulas is the way to go. I think, you don't really beleive it can work and that's fine.

Obama's mistake in my opinion is reaching out to Republicans on this. As they are ideologicallly opposed. Maybe they really think it is a waste, fine that is their opinion. But since they are refusing to compromise since they do disagree, to the point they think there is no middle ground; Obama's best option is to go full speed ahead.

If he beleives in keynseian, economics he should go full throttle and take all the glory if it works or all the blame if it fails, instead of waiting for republicans to join him in bi-partisan support, because that ain't gonna happen.

Pea, you avoided answering ANYTHING remotely like my question and I am calling you a liar. You are not a Republican nor have you ever been one.

I should know better than to expect honesty and integrity from Wizbang lefty Squad commenters, but I keep trying...

What, SPECIFICALLY, has Obama done that demonstrates he's doing a great job? Secondarily, why would an URGENTLY NEEDED stimulus package involve spending plans as distant as 12 years away? And would't it stand to reason that anyone trying to get a bill like that passed - LOADED with pork and vote-buying - is doing the opposite of a great job? He's trying to sell this thing like a shitty used car.

Why would anyone - Democrat or Republican - accept this kind of madness and call it a good job?

"Obama's best option is to go full speed ahead."

I agree. And when the whole redistribution thing crumbles under its own weight - as it always does and always will - We'll have exactly one man to blame.

Obama is personally going to destroy the ability of Democrats to get elected for at least the next two or three big elections and a few midterms as well.

jim - dont go treating this discussion as something you ought to have some kind of power over. im sharing my comments the way i see fit and all the rather silly huffing and puffing youre doing about that leaves me extremely unimpressed

this 2-year delay issue you bring up isnt all that compelling without more background. the plan isnt anywhere near finalized, so you should cite links for your main points so that we can read exactly what youre talking about. after 8 years of unflinching bu$h and republican lies, the last thing i'll do is launch into a debate over points tossed up by people such as yourself without substantiation

and while im at it, why should i lie about my (now outdated) republican affiliation? honestly, you guys arent in any way important enough to lie to. bu$h disgusted millions like myself out of his corner and you know it, ohhh yes you do.......

pea[brain]3000 - "the last thing i'll do is launch into a debate over points tossed up by people such as yourself without substantiation"

Now isn't that just hypocrisy in it's highest form. He who provides nothing but unsubstantiated shit on a stick and hardly ever links to any damn thing.

P.S. as to your misguided belief the "2-year delay issue" hasn't been shown to be true,... no one less than the CBO has shown that (You know the CBO is the Congressional Gold Standard and how they determine the worth of legislature) AND linked to in some the threads on this topic

JMC -

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you on the infrastructure improvements. Roads and bridges and the like are always going to need maintenance and upkeep.

But according to page 215 of the stimulus package, the amount in the bill for transportation improvements (roads&bridges) is going to run about $50 billion.

Also, in many cases the city, county, and state governments are already obligated to do the improvements with funds from federal highway tax (IE gas tax) revenue.

I never thought I'd get to a point where I'd think $50 bil wasn't enough money for something - but if this bill is about infrastructure, that ain't enough.

Maybe you've got some other info - is there a few hundred billion tucked away elsewhere in this pig that isn't quickly visible?

So the end belief seems to be that because Obama says it's needed, it's needed. Political payback, baby - who cares how badly it further screws things up down the road if you can score political points with it? It's all the Republicans fault anyway, right?

Don't analyze.

Don't think.

Don't question.

Don't look at specific items and wonder where they fit into stimulating the private sector economy.

Don't look at money being allocated that won't be spent for years.

Don't listen to any doubts.

Don't think about how much this is going to cost in the future.

Well - about all I can say is I hope you folks who want this package enjoy what we're all gonna get. Because the hangover from that party is gonna be a killer...

1So the end belief seems to be that because Obama says it's needed, it's needed.

No, because monetary policy has failed to alleviate the crisis and spending is all the Government has left. Google Keynseian economics for an explaantion of the theory.

Political payback, baby - who cares how badly it further screws things up down the road if you can score political points with it? It's all the Republicans fault anyway, right?

Actually, I think it is a philsophy of irresposible tax cuts, deregulation, terrible managment of at the fed, and a policy of essentially going from the world's biggest creditor (1980) to the world's biggest debtor (today) I think the philsophy has in essence orginated with Reagan and voodoo economics, but Clinton was more than happy to carry on with that mantle if it scored him political points and certianly George Bush wasn't going to go in and start regulating things.

Don't analyze.

Don't think.

Don't question.

Don't look at specific items and wonder where they fit into stimulating the private sector economy.

What is this the republican mantra?

Don't look at money being allocated that won't be spent for years.

Why, would I care about the money not being spent immedietly? short term thinking is what got us into this and more tax cuts for the wealthy will not get us out of it.

Don't listen to any doubts.

Don't think about how much this is going to cost in the future.

Don't think about the consequences of cutting spending when their is no money in circulation.

Well - about all I can say is I hope you folks who want this package enjoy what we're all gonna get. Because the hangover from that party is gonna be a killer...

We are already experiencing the hangover of failed Econmic policy that began with Ronald Reagan's voodoo economics that took us from a credit giving nation to a debtor nation while changing us from a country that once had 8% of the nation's wealth owned by the richest 1% to a nation in which 23% of the nation's wealth is now owned by the richest 1%. Don't worry I don't expect you to think about this.

Well, there we go. I guess we are going to have this discussion. I assume now you wil ask for documentation on my figures. I'll provide them (not that it will change you your mind) After that you will ask me to justify things line by line, sure I will do it if it makes you happy You will of course prove intractable in your postion after I do so. But what the hell lets waste each others time. I wanted to avoid biting because I have more pressing things (like picking lint out of my belly button) but why not, Show me line but line why you hate the package then I'll go in and show you line by line why I like it. I have already done this for myself but for some reason you seem to want my reasoning on record.

pea[brain]3000 - "the last thing i'll do is launch into a debate over points tossed up by people such as yourself without substantiation"

Conservatives sure are a nasty bunch that jumps right into the name calling aren't they?

JMC -

I think we've reached an impasse. I don't have hardly any more time I can spend on this myself. Our philosophies are different, we both see justifications for our points of view, but I don't think we'll reconcile them. Our discussion on this board isn't going to affect things one way or the other anyhow, and I'd hate to tear you away from your navel lint. (Um. That visual isn't a pretty one, is it?)

Thanks for being civil - and I sincerely hope if this thing is passed that YOUR take on it is right, and that it DOES perform like it says on the package.

"Conservatives sure are a nasty bunch that jumps right into the name calling aren't they? "

Really? You didn't see the Wizbang Lefty Squad leap directly to name calling in this very thread?

This comment was extraordinarily hypocritical. I'm sure you are much more intellectually honest than this, right?

Right?

Thanks for being civil - and I sincerely hope if this thing is passed that YOUR take on it is right, and that it DOES perform like it says on the package.

You were being far more civil than I was and I do appreciate that. So thanks. Perhaps someday when we both have time, we can really dig into the details.

In the meantime, lets just hope one way another we somehow stumble out of this mess.

This comment was extraordinarily hypocritical. I'm sure you are much more intellectually honest than this, right?

I'm willing to admit some on the left here will name call. People on the right do it just as often, as marc demonstrated. You are intellectualy honest enough to admit that, right?

JMC -

In the meantime, lets just hope one way another we somehow stumble out of this mess.

Amen to that! Think we should send a flashlight to Washington?

jmc - "I'm willing to admit some on the left here will name call. People on the right do it just as often, as marc demonstrated."

Yepper I damn sure do jmc.

I would suggest you spend some time researching on just who I use it against. Without exception it's to people (in some cases I use the term people lightly) that use childish name calling first or have from their first appearance here done nothing but toss idiotic invective around.

Do put yourself on my list.

Amen to that! Think we should send a flashlight to Washington?

It probably wouldn't hurt. :)

Do put yourself on my list.

With pleasure.

lol @ Zelsdorf indeed.

Trogdor!!!!!! I mean... Zelsdorf!!!!!!