SuperJerk

I'm certainly no expert on NY politics, but I'd think he'd be able to do well upstate just because of his party affiliation. And certainly there are people in NYC who still like him.

Hey, did you know Iraq was haivng an election this weekend? Good: Not good:

According to Rush, his views were formed by listening to his father when he was a child. So, basically, the future of the Republican Party is being guided by the rantings of a rural Missouri lawyer during the 1950s.

Well, he WAS on CNN the other day defending corporate bonuses...that'll at least help him with fundraising.

Here, for future use, try this one: http://www.geocities.com/denniverse/pix/pi...no-facepalm.jpg DENNIVERSE: OUR BANDWIDTH DOESN'T GET EXCEEDED!

It's Blagojevich's fault your bandwidth was exceeded?

Rush Limbaugh doesn't pander to the base, he tells the base what to think.

Mittens weighs in on the stimulus plan... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_...ney_republicans More proof that he is about as sharp as a bowling ball when it comes to political positioning. If the worst case scenario doesn't occur, Mitt just ends up looking like an economic nay-sayer and obstructionist.

I completely disagree with you on the value of newer infrastructure (heard anything about collapsed bridges lately? What effect do you think making it harder for commuters and shipping to travel has on the economy and productivity?), but this took me by surprise... You might want to qualify that a little bit.

Holy crap, Obama got to sign a bill into law!

Infrastructure as opposed to collapsing bridges, even more congested highways (look out for those potholes), and more roads into areas that can be used for further economic development. But I still say the main reason to do it is that it creates jobs, which give people money to spend, which increases demand for goods and services, which creates other jobs and more people with money to spend. Yeah, eventually the initial jobs go away, but it is potentially offset by the new jobs that were created, and the people who had those infrastructure jobs can be absorbed into the workforce in other areas once the economy is moving again. Things like infrastructure, health care, and education are good investments for ngovernment because (if done correctly) they can enhance private sector productivity.

From FoxNews.com Wait....whut?

But that way we're more likely to put more money in the hands of people who already have money than try to directly help those who do not. That way, everything stays exactly the same. It's ingenious.

You guys saying you can't wait for 2010...you really want to put those idiots back in charge of the Congress? After the awesome job they did up until 2005? Really? What would a Republican stimulus plan look like? Based on their track record, it'd look like corporate giveaways (i.e. war profiteers and the pharmecutical industry), none of which ever seems to trickle down to most people. At least when the Democrats are in charge, they throw money at regular people instead of big business. The only things the government can do to encourage people to come up with technological innovations is other incentives for those innovations and make sure the public is being educated to a degree that someone with Gates' or Jobs' innate talents can realize them, but conservatives tend to argue against both of these things. Isn't it possible that infrastructure spending will employ people, who will in turn spend money, which will in turn create more jobs, which will in turn cause other people to spend money....you get the idea (but if not, look up "the multiplier effect"). Okay, so I missed one word. In my defense, what you wrote, with your references to Hispancis and big families, made it sound like you were talking about births, and not just pregnancies.

Clinotn's economic package passed without a single Republican vote, either, and we saw how well that turned out.

It's pretty much anywhere where hispanic populations are more concentrated, if you've noticed. It's definitely a cultural thing, as women being pregnant at a younger age is not as big of a deal in latino culture as it is in other ones. But yes, there's definitely a correlation there between the bible belt, especially if you look at the top ten states by live birth, although that shouldn't be as big of a surprise because abortion is severely frowned upon in some of those states. Although I cannot dispute the reasoning behind the high rankings in your list, the CDC has different results, in which southern states continue to be over-represented in the top 10: http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2...state-rank.html

I'm sure everyone in the "liberal media" was quick to retract their earlier stories on the report.

So she started a political action committee to beg for campaign money. (Though she doesn't come out and say exactly what the money is for.)

I don't want to be accused (again) of making anything up, so I'm just referring people to check some official sources.

Based on his definitions, I think snuffbox confused conservatism with libertarianism, and liberalism with authoritarianism. There are too many legitimate sources available that explain the meanings of these two ideologies for me to need to define the terms. Sufficed to say, in all my years of political study and involvement, I rarely if ever seen definitions as simplistic and inadequate as the ones he offered.

If this whole thing is a conspiracy by the Illinois Senate, why is the FBI involved? Why was he arrested? He is ridiculous. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090128/ap_on_...nor_impeachment This phone conversation is probably just the tip of the iceberg. edit: Oh, snaps, here they are. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/InterceptedCommunications.asp?

You seem confused.

You don't think massive amounts of federal spending after 9/11 and the business cycle played a substantial part in the recovery from that recession?

I don't think your definitions are accurate.