Dr. Tyler; Captain America

...he should enter the draft, you fool.

Fitzgerald likely won't be even half as good next year if he stays at Pitt. They're losing most of the offense to graduation.

Clinton proposed a balanced budget, too. They just passed a different balanced budget.

That's what McCain-Feingold sought to do; that is, it sought to ban soft money.

But he didn't, so he is. Except it was, with some adjustments. So is this. Take the next step forward.

Check Findlaw, they may have it up. The reason I was forced to read it is because my case is tomorrow, and this directly affects my argument. I basically started reading it at about noon and finished up around four... and now I'm off again to write more crap. EDIT: By "it" I mean the HTML format.

As I'm sure you conservatives are most interested in Scalia's dissent (as is usual), I'll give you a hint: it starts on page 168.

Actually, I just finished reading the entire thing. I've been following the case closely, as it relates to my mock court case in a constitutional law class. So yes, in fact, I do know what the fuck I'm talking about in this respect. http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/fec/mccon...ec121003opn.pdf

Me

Incorrect.

It's a real good way to get people to jump on board to support us in Iraq.

Perhaps because Reagan's budgets were already so ginormous that it would take a freaking retarded chimp to think that Reagan didn't cause the deficit by proposing such inflated budgets.

Actually, you managed to say absolutely nothing. Read the opinion. They explain exactly why the strict scrutiny standard does not apply to negative political ads. You stated a broad opinion of your OWN right here, and you've done NOTHING to back it up except "SCALIA IS RIGHT LOL" So, by all means, you're full of shit.

Of course he does; he was appointed to the Supreme Court, after all. The only justice that I'd argue is not a brilliant legal mind on the Court is Thomas.

Please back up -- in your own words -- how it's a clear violation of the First Amendment. Cite precedent where applicable.

Hey, look! A bullshit straw man! Guess what? None of Clinton's budgets under the Republican Congress passed, either! I'd bet, historically, that EXTREMELY few Presidential budgets have EVER passed through a Congress controlled by the opposite party. Proposed Actual (in billions) FY1982 695 696 FY1983 758 770 FY1984 849 859 FY1985 926 932 FY1986 974 968 FY1987 994 995 FY1988 1024 1041 FY1989 1094 1100 Surely you've seen that table before. The difference in spending between the passed and proposed budgets are negligable, as you see. The total of an extra $47 billion tacked on by the congress is NOT to blame for Reagan's extravagant spending.

I'm calling bullshit on this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/08/scotus.p...s.ap/index.html Uh... this is interesting. Does anyone know if there's ever been a public figure who has successfully sued a recording artist for referencing them in a song? Even more odd about this case is that Outkast DOESN'T EVEN USE HER NAME IN THE SONG. But yeah, uh, comments?

Or you could get into Bit Torrent for movies and shows.

My theory is that the same people that are controlling the Salazars are controlling the ex-husband and it's gonna be another conspiracy to bring down Palmer! They've got to tie it in, and I'm confident they will.

Die!

Was it ever a secret?

It's easier than laying it out for Mike to try to argue for about seven hours. Instead, I get to go study for an exam. Groovy.

Is that the Hannity talking point that Franken destroyed?

His proposed budget, smartass.