Rob E Dangerously

What the.. ok Mr. President

anybody keeping a count on the number of blinks from Bush?

The Moderator needs some water too

56.. that's 1050% percent more than 5 (I think)

Brilliant! sorta like how we reduced drinking with prohibition! Brilliant!

buggy and horse days! on the Paygo

"Sure hope it isn't the administration" *silence*

yes.. you can reduce something by banning it.. brilliant!

"President Bush, will you reveal the truth about Area 51?"

is this the Misc. debate.. or what?

My budgetman will stop the paygo

damnit.. I meant Strom.. anyways.. Strom fathered kids at 70.. that tops endorsing viagra at 73

If she does have tapes.. then that should spice things up a bit. Or make us all go deaf. I doubt "The O'Reilly Factor for Kids" teaches the kids how to masturbate properly. This is still less creepy than hearing about Storm Thurmond's sex life

from the House Floor, from Congressman Ike Skelton (and the person bringing the bill to the floor was Representative McHugh. After the bill spent 20 months in a subcommittee) I'd say that my neighboring Congressman (he represents West-Central Missouri) said quite a bit there Rock the Vote is to blame because the President's credibility is in question? There's plenty of reasons not to believe the President right now. And Bush has shown that he's more likely to make a move which would necessitate an increase in troops (though whatever means) than Kerry. The defense from the RNC and Bush is really weak. You'd think that for an administration which believed they wouldn't do that, they'd make a stronger claim than "look, it's working!". Bringing a bill out of subcommitee after laying dormant for 20 months and then voting it down by 400 votes. Very convincing. It's all the internets. There's no reason at all to think that there might be a need for more troops. "And two of them voted for the bill in the House! They want to do the draft!" The Rangel bill had some very unique logic. Basically, it was a no-hoper bill (until the "internets" came in) and he thought that more people would be cautious about going to war if their kids could be drafted. I don't buy into the "We have the poor fighting over there so we need a draft" idea, since when they had a draft, the claim was "We have the poor fighting over there" and here's something to close (random note: The authorization seems constitutionally questionable to me. Granted, if you get into following the "Only Congress can declare war" thing, that's just too tricky to handle)

Actually.. the claim appears to be "it's partisan" http://downloads.rockthevote.com/multimedi...ideos/draft.mov and man.. they socked it to Bush there

"One presumes none of this is included in O'Reilly's latest book, The O'Reilly Factor for Kids, available at a bookstore near you, batteries not included." - Keith Olbermann

http://americablog.blogspot.com/rncrockthevote.pdf thoroughly? ok then

My eyes.. ze goggles.. dey doo nuffing!

Vibrators.. Phone Sex.. SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Nader fought hard so Fred Flintstone's car would stop tipping over when he got the ribs!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_el_pr/nader_1 Well.. so much for that.. it is a shame that the Flintstones won't get their chance to vote for Nader, although Fred's probably just a Republican anyways.

"Honey, Welcome to the No Spin Zone!"

Actually.. the messenger is a member of the site. Each member has a "diary" for reporting various political stuff. And I don't even know where your thumb has been either

So.. did Bush know of the mythical stature of the surplus before he cut taxes? I recall that he said a surplus was proof of over-taxation. And if there was never a surplus.. does this mean we'll run a larger deficit than the current one, or a smaller one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm Hmm.. ok Mike

http://www.thecourier.com/issues/2004/Oct/101204.htm#story4 This is one reason why you'll hear John Snow's name tonight. You better get used to it. (I wonder if the surplus being imaginary makes the record deficit okay) The Kerry response (which will probably be repeated tonight): and the "Davey" Edwards response, which doesn't promise healings (meaning it won't get as much play) I'm sure there's an alert we can raise for "Excessive John Snow" I wonder if there's some stuff to show that Bush will end this term with more jobs than in January 2001. (Well, granted, I bet the rebuttal is "We have more people employed in 2004 than in 2001.. ignoring the fact that the labor force also grows and all) Beware the John Snowman!