snuffbox

Mark Penn is leaving the Clinton campaign after the Colombian thing.

King has been trying really, really hard. I'm proud of him.

Off to another great start. If he can just stay healthy, he can be a Cy Young contender.

Cold dead hands.

Ambassador Marney is not an unknown e-quantity. She was asked to come back. Why is there this shock at nobody wanting to engage in serious discussion with somebody who refers to a presidential candidate in every single post as 'B.O. Hussein', drives a point of him being a 'bastard' as far as it could go, and cites bad Wikipedia links for her points? Nobody took it seriously or enjoyed it when Marvin did it or all the posters that were banned "for sucking" did it. It's cool if the new moderators (and, yes, we are well aware by now of the new e-powers you possess) quietly agree with the ideas and research of Marney but don't act surprised when it's laughed at for what it is.

Were the complaints about being called queers and idiots, or about the opinions?

Did anybody actually complain?

http://lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/0.../03standoff.txt

I really can't do much more than laugh whenever somebody tries to use that 'what's Obama's plan?' canard anymore. After so many specific-issue speeches and statements, he is far more detailed in his actual plan than either Clinton or McCain. I know the media hasn't caught on to that yet (still giving Hillary a free pass on milking fabricated war experiences) but I'd kinda like to think we're all a bit smarter than them.

Holy shit, Billy Hall.

Many people probably shouldn't be allowed to age publicly.

A very compelling argument/source, Ambassador.

I'm saying that the only teams that would really want him and could maybe hypothetically get him would be the worst teams out there. His agent denied the report so I think its moot.

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers would demand a trade or something if Favre came back.

He couldn't go to a different team that wouldn't be considerably worse than Green Bay. Dumb rumor.

The Cubs were also deemed finished in April last year. Their playoff run should have an asterisk.

Suppan was pretty good in April last year, too.

I depend on fire fighters, and Ron Paul wants to fire all them. So what does a reduced government mean then? And not "they have less control over our lives," details plz. -Reduce spending (drug war, Iraq, worldwide military presence, bureacracy spending) = actual tax cuts. -Those four examples of reduced government alone would be huge. -Cutting back on surveillance of people and such (this both returns privacy and will save a massive amount of money). Cutting the government down doesn't mean no firemen or police or that everbody will be dead on the sidewalks with needles dangling from spent arms. Ron Paul has often been rather careful to preface any of his more revolutionary ideas by saying that they would be done over an extended period of time. None but the fringe people who don't really understand the realistics of libertarianism are suggesting that everything be shut down on day one. Andrew Jackson already showed us ending the Federal Reserve immediately would be a horrendous idea. It an be cut, I've given examples, but if they ever comes to a fruition it wont be overnight it won't be the end of public safety forever.

You can have an infrastructure and care for the welfare of the people without taking a third of everybody's warnings. A reduced government doesn't mean people will lose everything they depend upon.

If a big government is good, a bigger one is better! Or something.

I'll never believe that.

I keep forgetting that it's been Democrats and Republicans since 1800.

It almost makes you think people might have been banned for a reason. Almost.

The Democratic party is not getting any smaller. But, the Republican party has far surpassed them for size of government, spending, and restrictions on the populace. In spending so much more money it is certain that, no matter how much is borrowed from foreign nations, it will eventually have to implement a hefty tax raise (and it's already plenty high no matter what horseshit about cuts are ever said). The Dems are the party of big, the GOP for bigger. Of these two parties, if they remain the two in power, it should be obvious that the only capable of actually lowering spending and taxes is the one that would be cutting some of the other's hyper-spending. While it is certainly no gurantee that the Democrats would lower taxes, or that it wouldn't elect leadership that would, like LBJ before, think that a guns/butter strategy would pan out well, it the only one of the past several election cycles and (if Barack Obama is elected anyway) again this year that actually holds that possibility. Judging by their nomination process this year, I see absolutely no indication that the Republican party will move away from its current trend. If enough of the American people collectively decide that they would like a true small-government option the Libertarian party could have a window to become the other of the Big Two.

Calling everybody else a bunch of queers is skilled messageboarding.