SuperJerk

Pure hyperbole. I doubt the people who say that could even name every president, let alone tell you why Carter or Bsh were worse than any of them. Among experts, its almost universally agreed that the worst were Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, U.S. Grant, and James Buchanan. Carter wasn't good, but he wasn't as bad as those guys.

Yeah because we all know that no one in their 20's can have kids. Right. Its not a question of whether or not people in their 20s can have children (although most people here admit that they do not), it is a question of whether or not those people in their 20s who post on an internet message board (in this case a forum devoted to wrestling and pop culture) actually know enough about child care to argue for or against the merits of various forms of parenting techniques.

Did I miss something here? Didn't this bipartisan group advocate for a withdrawal? I'd think Feingold would be jumping for joy that an independent voice is calling for exactly what he wanted. Feingold strikes me as the kind of guy who'd get a free steak dinner and then complain about the silverware. More Democrats like him, and we'll find ourselves back in the minority.

What about O'Connor, Eagleburger, Meese, Simpson, Hamilton, Jordan, Panetta, and Robb? Can you show in any way that "every single one of them" supported it? How credible could this commision had been if it'd included people who'd publicly taken sides? This group was set up to figure out what to do about Iraq, not rake the Bush Administration over the coals for screwing up in the first place. Yes, some people WHO ONLY HAD WHAT INFORMATION THE BUSH ADMINISRATION WAS TELLING THEM TO GO BY mistakenly believed that Iraq had WMDs. Oh, no. We can never listen to their ideas ever again. Because Howard Dean is always right, I guess.

He was under house arrest. At least we knew where he was. Just don't go in that house.

If Evan Bayh wins a single primary, I will change my username to Peacenik J. Treehugger. You realize its still 2006, right?

She hasn't exactly been too busy since she won that Oscar.

And they couldn't even be bothered to get Furlong back, either.

Are they particularly extensive, or just a few hand-picked issues?

Wait....they gave them GUNS????

Hey, look...its "Ultimate Justice League".

Someone who deserves to die.

God yes. Kill it with fire.

I need to get me some New Gods/4th World books to read. Wait...are there any New Gods/4th World trades?

Someone already mentioned Highlander, but did anyone say "Star Trek"?

Ditto. Why? Because the alien took the form of her father? Assuming that's what you think (that's the reason I suaully hear), would creating some silly looking CGI aliens really have helped the movie? Because I actually think that ending would have been worse.

I didn't know a motherbox could do any of that.

That's not what you said, and I'm not playing the negative-proof game. We don't know what they thought one way or the other. None of those Democrats were even in office in 2003. And except for O'Conner, neither were any of the Republicans. O'Conner COULDN'T take a position because she was on the Supreme Court. In other words, we don't know WHERE most of those people stood, but for either you or Feingold to assume that they supported it because they didn't say is the same kind of "if you're not with us you're against us" bullshit tactic the Bush Administration has used for the last 5 years.

My information was that Romney is pro-choice. If I'm misinformed, then I'll give him better chances than I do now. Did you know that of the five governors that have been party nominees in the last 50 years, only one has failed to become president? Since Evan Bayh was a 2-term governor, I'd say his chances are better than Barrack Obama's, John Edwards's, or Hillary Clinton's at being elected.

Relax. Kids today aren't any worse than any other generation. Brats and juvenille deliquents are nothing new. Usually its the polite, well-behaved kids that grow up to run the country. Kids like this end up working dead end jobs or in jail because they're too irresponsible to become a productive member of society. A lot of kids also mellow out by the time they reach adulthood, and those who don't suffer the consequences.

You know what's funny? A bunch of 20-something internet nerds giving each other parenting advice. And spare me this "you know what's wrong with this generation" crap. I grew up in the 80s and we were WORSE than kids nowadays.

Don't tell me to "look beyond the surface" while simulaneously offering your sorry excuse for analysis. You're trying to have it both ways. If you remove McCain and Guiliani, Huckabee's the frontrunner, not Romney. Huckabee's positions fall in line with what Republican primary voters want to hear, plus he has a great human interest story. He's also a genuinely nice guy, whereas Romney comes off like some slick northeasterner who also happens to support (in their minds) the legalized murder of unborn babies. Who do you really think John C. Biblethumper's going to pull the lever for? You really have no dea why I'm backing Bayh, do you? Use your brain for a second here...you're the one that's getting all emotionally worked up over people with no chance of carrying a single red state, not me. Bayh has the best chance of getting 270 electoral votes worth of states in the blue. Moderate ex-governor of a red state wth foriegn policy experience who talks tough on national defense > whatever liberal masturbation fantasy the peaceniks and the tree-huggers decide is flavor of the month. Sure, Obama's a swell guy and gives a rousing speech, but that's not going to cut it when you're electing the commander-in-chief in the post 9/11 world. After 8 years of Bush, the party's base will be willing to overlook some of Bayh's more conservative positions and accept him because he's more acceptable to them than ANYONE the GOP has to offer. And if a guy has four or five HUGE things working against him, and you only mention something completely irrelevant as a possible spoiler, can you blame me for thinking you don't know what you are talking about?

Why do you have to lie because you don't like my conclusion about something completely unrelated? Can anyone find a quote of this? "encouraged the conditions that would help lead to" ≠ "started...with his bare hands" Only an idiot would not be able to see the difference. You need to do a lot more research on Romney if you think that's the only thing that could hold him back.

*sigh* I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MEDIA AND THE POLLS. No, Humphrey wouldn't have one the nomination, but at the time he was the only big name floating about OVER A FULL YEAR BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE WOULD BE CAST. Yes, Humphrey was already a 2-time loser and had terminal cancer. In reality, he had no chance. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point was that any "big names" floating out there as the top draw in a crowded field isn't a good indication of who the frontrunner will be. History says that the Democratic frontrunner will NOT be the person the media says in the popular favorite over a year before the election. That was true in all of the elections I cited. Bayh's a good candidate and is abundantly qualified. I might change my tune if he gets shown up in the debates, but as of now, he still has a very good chance of running away with this thing. Why do you have to lie because you don't like my conclusion about something completely unrelated?