SuperJerk

Carl Bernstein rips Hillary a new one.

Was I the only one sexually aroused by this?

Isn't it obvious by now that American liberals and conservatives define patriotism in different ways? To conservatives, patriotism is loyalty to their interpretation of national heritage. To liberals, patriotism is the defense of their interpretation of national ideals.

Having children is a human right. Once the state starts determining who should and should not have kids without any legal due process based on arbitrary criteria, you've crossed into the realm totalitarian social engineering.

I agree, though I think that C-Bacon's knee-jerk socialist cant ("You may have earned it but it's not YOUR money! We're going to force you to give it to us for the COMMON GOOD!") and Y2Jerk's inevitable liberal bullshit ("Just educate them! We really can perfect humanity! YES WE CAN!") makes them worthy of such threads as well. You know me too well, my dear.

That had all the production values of those video tapes Jerry Falwell used to sell about Vince Foster and the Arkansas drug trade.

Olbermann just wants to be a liberal counter-point to Fox News, but minus the on-air drama. It's not a fair and balanced show, as it reflects his opinions. The other main difference between him and O'Reilly is that he doesn't invite people on his show just to ambush them, talk over them, or have 2-on-one shout-fests between liberals and conservatives.

I'd be more concerned with presenting accurate information than being ironic, were I you. That was too poorly written to be considered a reliable source. For example, it switches between pounds and kilograms measuring CO2 emissions within the same sentence, talks about an unproven 30-year lag in between carbon emission and when it actually affects the atmosphere, gives few hard numbers to back its claims up, talks about how added stress from being 1 degree more than the previous average temperature (I presume that's what they mean, since they never define what that temperature is), and the only footnotes is does give to tell where the info came from is inaccessible. If you really believe that the worst-case scenario this page laid out is already happening (something they don't claim) and trees are already put out more CO2 than they are scrubbing, then the only solution is to immediately stop burning fossil fuels, which I don't think you advocate.

Rush Limbaugh is fat. Rush Limbaugh smokes cigars. Therefore, all fat people smoke cigars. Same logic.

If you do, then as I said: bulldoze the rainforests. You'll need to produce some evidence that the one-third of the amount of the methane in the atmosphere that is from plants plus the CO2 emitted by burning or decaying trees is greater than the amount of CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere by plants' photosynthesis process before I'm convinced.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...urch-fired-gun/ I bring this article up for 3 reasons: 1. The quote: "This is about what people feel is being said about them." It's not about what he actually said. It's not about what people think about what he actually said. It's not about what people feel about the economy. It's about FEEL is being said about THEM. 2. Apparently owning a gun or going to church yourself aren't relevant when faking that you are offended by your opponents alleged comments about religious people and gun owners. 3. She's going door to door in Scranton, PA. The article doesn't mention if she plans to visit the local paper warehouse or nearby beet farms.

Aren't we talking about a bunch of GIRLS? Are you saying girls becoming too girly for you?

Back to the actual topic, though... The idea that someone (even a teenage parent) would actually want their kid to claim a gang is pretty despicable. I've heard all the arguments about innocent reasons why people join gangs and how kids need a sense of belonging to a family, etc., but street gangs are criminal organizations. To raise a kid into one is grounds for the local DFS to step in and try to make sure this child actually gets a chance in life.

Once we find the exact quote, I suspect it'll be something along the lines of "when people are facing economic uncertainty, they become bitter and hold firmer to their traditional values" or some other completely innocent statement. WHO'S OUT OF TOUCH NOW, HUH??? Well, there's one thing I can't fault her for...

Why don't we just try mandatory sex education classes that actually tell kids the truth, and then see what happens from there?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ence-with-guns/

I'm having a hard time finding the actual "bitter" quote that Obama is getting slammed for. I'd like to actually read it, and not a reporter's or politician's paraphrasing of it.

Mrs. Clinton faux EVERYTHING is growing particularly tiresome.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...bitter-comment/ Next they'll be attacking him for saying the sky is blue, because anyone who says the sky is blue is obviously talking down to the American people.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oY...s98w8wD900G2KG0

Only in America would someone's middle name be a campaign issue.

Those are all good points. When you put it that way, I think the Democrats might stand a better chance if the nominee runs their campaign independently of the state's machinery. So are the Democrats in the state more mad at Granholm for the debacle, and not the national party for enforcing the rules?