Big Ol' Smitty

Yeah that's what I meant. Islamism is the political application of Islam. Excellent point.

I agree that the actions of France in Cote d'Ivoire were hypocritical. They call for multilateralism in our situation with Iraq, and then those buttplugs go and act unilaterally in Africa.

Powerplay, I agree with much of what you said, but I have a couple of qualms: I'm not sure if I can buy this domino theory. I don't think having a couple of fledgling liberal democracies in the region are going to somehow cause the other countries to eschew Islamism. Think about the domino theory of the Cold War. It posited that if Vietnam fell to communism, then all of SE and E Asia would follow soon thereafter. Vietnam fell. The dominoes didn't fall. Is this based on the "70% poll"? If so, then I would strongly question the validity of the poll. How could you possibly get a good sample with all of the chaos going on there? Fallujah? Sadr City? If you're not basing it on the poll, then where did you get the info?

Do civil unions give all the same legal benefits of marriage, Loss? If not, then I would strongly support gay marriage. If so, then I wouldn't really care either way.

I agree. I am going to look for inconsistencies and problems in the article. Thank you, good sir.

Wikipedia has already made a page on voting problems in the 2004 elections. But its neutrality and accuracy have been questioned, according to the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Ele...nic_voting_bias

What are you implying about my fellow TSMers?

This is me last year. I've put on about 10 lbs. since.

"Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in the republic's history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. 'I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage – all we could have asked. For heaven's sake, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."... And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/ neoconservative publicist in America, has come clean on this issue. 'I admit it,' he told a reporter. 'The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.' http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465001769...00J#reader-page

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/BASES.PDF I'm underwhelmed.

Not to child poverty. ...in my opinion. That' what you meant, right? No, it's not my opinion. It's a fact. -=Mike fact (n.)- a concept whose truth can be proved Get to provin'.

Those are not changes, Mike, those are undoings of progress that has been made. Taking steps backwards on welfare, affirmative action and tort reform is not a shake-up of the status quo. Those absolutely are changes and are an attempt to fix massive problems evident in the system. There are no backwards steps involved. Requiring work and a time limit for welfare has been a massive boon. Affirmative action DESPERATELY needs reformation. Tort reform is unbelievably needed. Not really. It's the left that supports stem cell research without ridiculous limitations, gay marriage and government-sponsored healthcare. All changes proposed with the future in mind. By your logic, Bush abolishing the Clean Air Act was "change" The "Far right" Bush is the only President to EVER allow ANY federal funding for stem cell research, so the complaint doesn't begin to hold water. The conservatives have no problem with stem cell research --- they have a problem with the gov't funding it. And the "changes" the left want will be damaging unbelievably to America (health care) or the usual innocuous crap (gay marriage). How do you think organizations like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the NAACP, NOW and GLAAD, just to name a few, continue to exist without donations? Well, the NAACP I know subscribes to the Jesse Jackson "Shakedown" school of fund raising. NOW nand GLAAD are such insignificant groups on the landscape that their fund-raising matches that. I'm going with independent figures to state that the left doesn't give. -=Mike Not to child poverty. ...in my opinion. That's what you meant, right?

Even if that chart is accurate (it doesn't come from Argentina, though, so I question its veracity) it does not negate the fact that the red states receive more from the government than they give. This from the "get the government out of my life" crowd. Actually, a nice bit of it is from old people moving here to retire. Nice try, though. -=Mike States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. D.C. ($6.17) 2. North Dakota ($2.03) 3. New Mexico ($1.89) 4. Mississippi ($1.84) 5. Alaska ($1.82) 6. West Virginia ($1.74) 7. Montana ($1.64) 8. Alabama ($1.61) 9. South Dakota ($1.59) 10. Arkansas ($1.53) Source: Tax Foundation Yeah, all those poor people moving to North Dakota and Alaska. And they have, what, 4 people? -=Mike ...In case you missed it, FL is a bit of a retirement haven... What about those conservative strongholds of Mississippi and Alabama? In case you're unaware, more than a few retirees and military people in those states. -=Mike And none in these states? States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. New Jersey ($0.62) 2. Connecticut ($0.64) 3. New Hampshire ($0.68) 4. Nevada ($0.73) 5. Illinois ($0.77) 6. Minnesota ($0.77) 7. Colorado ($0.79) 8. Massachusetts ($0.79) 9. California ($0.81) 10. New York ($0.81)

And Florida is pretty low on the list $1.00 received per $1.00 spent.

Even if that chart is accurate (it doesn't come from Argentina, though, so I question its veracity) it does not negate the fact that the red states receive more from the government than they give. This from the "get the government out of my life" crowd. Actually, a nice bit of it is from old people moving here to retire. Nice try, though. -=Mike States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. D.C. ($6.17) 2. North Dakota ($2.03) 3. New Mexico ($1.89) 4. Mississippi ($1.84) 5. Alaska ($1.82) 6. West Virginia ($1.74) 7. Montana ($1.64) 8. Alabama ($1.61) 9. South Dakota ($1.59) 10. Arkansas ($1.53) Source: Tax Foundation Yeah, all those poor people moving to North Dakota and Alaska. And they have, what, 4 people? -=Mike ...In case you missed it, FL is a bit of a retirement haven... What about those conservative strongholds of Mississippi and Alabama?

Even if that chart is accurate (it doesn't come from Argentina, though, so I question its veracity) it does not negate the fact that the red states receive more from the government than they give. This from the "get the government out of my life" crowd. Actually, a nice bit of it is from old people moving here to retire. Nice try, though. -=Mike States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. D.C. ($6.17) 2. North Dakota ($2.03) 3. New Mexico ($1.89) 4. Mississippi ($1.84) 5. Alaska ($1.82) 6. West Virginia ($1.74) 7. Montana ($1.64) 8. Alabama ($1.61) 9. South Dakota ($1.59) 10. Arkansas ($1.53) Source: Tax Foundation Yeah, all those poor people moving to North Dakota and Alaska.

Even if that chart is accurate (it doesn't come from Argentina, though, so I question its veracity) it does not negate the fact that the red states receive more from the government than they give. This from the "get the government out of my life" crowd.

It was a facetious rebuttal to Mike's previous post, what with the whole Michael Moore Sheep dynamic and all Yeah, I get it now. Sorry again.

If you're suggesting that I am saying this about the military, then you can bite my ass. Quoting out of context is fun, isn't it? I'll be damned it IS fun I just misunderstood your comment. It didn't really fit with the direction of Mike and I's conversation so I thought it was directed at me--I thought you were implying that I thought that about the military. I simply misunderstood. I come from a family with a military background and have several relatives in Iraq, so I was a little touchy about feeling that my respect for the military was being questioned. I apologize for getting angry. But your post didn't really have anything to do with what we were talking about--so it was confusing.

I never claimed that wasn't the case. But if that condition doesn't exist in blue states, then how come 47% of Iraqi casualties come from them? They hate the military but join anyway? If you're suggesting that I am saying this about the military, then you can bite my ass.

*singing* "Let the eagles soar!"

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. What is hard to believe? 53% of Iraq casualties from red states, 47% from blue states. Given that, you can no longer say "we know who supplies all the troops." And who are the "useless thugs"? And I love how you generalize about the whole Democratic Party (wanting secession) based on a few people who are either: a)joking OR b)extremists I don't base all of my opinions on conservatives on the words or actions of Timothy McVeigh and the militias.

-=Mike All that grave-pissing for nothing.

Hippie.