SuperJerk

Now you're just fucking with me.

Off topic, but strummer's sig owns me.

CBS just didn't break it down for us the way CNN did. 1 shooter+2 grandparents+5 others = 8 dead.

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/21...reut/index.html I'll let y'all make the punchlines for this one.

CNN finally got around to acknowledging the fatalities. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/21/school.shooting/index.html

Sen. Stevens is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, in line for the presidency behind the V.P. and Speaker of the House. credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/18/stevens/index.html The saddest part of this article is Bill Schneider giving him props for it. Third in line for the presidency? More like next in line for having a vagina.

Ah, yes, I believe its because they want that steady stream of U.S. dollars mailed back to Mexican relatives. Makes sense now.

credit: cbsnews.com credit: cnn.com

The religious right/conservatives constantly use issues the general public disagrees with them on for political advantage (i.e. abortion, gun control). That's because they have long memories and stay informed about who's playing up to their views (versus apathetic liberals who usually can't be bothered to vote at all, despite how much they claim to care about an issue).

I just sprayed pepsi all over my monitor.

Vince...HIRE THIS MAN!

The waiting's over!

But remember... Because things like terrorism, the Iraq War, education, tax cuts, health care, and the economy had no bearing on the election whatsoever. The entire election was won because the Republicans promised to drill for oil in Stevens's home state.

I'll admit, there's something very comforting about seeing that "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill before I stick it in a stripper's g-string.

This story makes me glad there's a First Amendment for three reasons: 1) Freedom for people to say really stupid things. 2) Freedom for the press to report something this stupid. 3) Freedom to make fun of someone for saying something this stupid.

Touche, good sir. Touche. edit: At least she wasn't comparing it to the moon-landing.

Don't tell me that wasn't a little heavy-handed. Okay, I won't then. You can't tell me, though, that trying to appear like a God-fearing church goer by favoring this stuff wasn't a major part of a certain former Arkansas governors' numerous reelection campaigns.

So...let me get this straight... The President of Mexico WANTS people to leave his country for the United States? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around just how fucked up that is.

So far I only see one side trying to get political benefit from it. The side that wants to let her die had already won before Congress stepped in. They have nothing to gain by dragging this out.

Is there a point you're willing to draw the line? Surely you see the difference between government displays of religion and "everything that could possibly be seen by human eyes." I've stated before why, on principle, I think those things are wrong. Am I willing to anything more than express my opinion about it on an internet message board? No. But I've definitely got a clear line drawn that I think people shouldn't cross when it comes to mixing politics and religion. What bothers me most about this is the way the religious right uses stupid things like the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments as a rallying cry for voting their lackeys into office. I bothers me when immoral politicians use people's religious beliefs to hide their own blatant immorality. Allowing government displays of religion helps these politicians to buy votes with hallejuahs. They can use their office to look holy in public, while being the devil behind closed doors.

When are politicians going to learn that everything they say is going to be twisted and turned against them at all times? Someday they'll wise-up and run everything through a focus group before they utter a single word. Otherwise you run the risk of having some guy on an internet message board saying someone needs to shut you up.

Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution. If you ignore entire portions of the Constitution, you make them irrelevant. Which DOES change them. -=Mike That's pretty far-fetched reasoning. The civil rights amendments passed after the Civil War were supposed to give former slaves rights equal to whites. For about 100 years, it didn't come close to happening. Which meant that the amendments were made useless for the groups they were intended to improve the lives of. -=Mike True, but that didn't change the Constitution. Ignoring the Constitution and changing the Constitution are two different things. You're trying to make her look like a villian by claiming she trying to do both simultaneously, which is impossible.

Anybody know what Constitutional justification the strict-constructionist Republicans are using to explain this law that was just passed about this? Interstate commerce clause perhaps?

I'm only quoting him so he can claim I invented this quote as well.