KaskadskyjKozak

That's an idea... I did buy some Irish whiskey recently - similar to Scotch but sweeter with a less earthy taste. Someone else recommended trying a Canadian whiskey as well. Maybe I'll need a bottle of each (Bourbon, Canadian whiskey). I'll need it for when the relatives visit over the holidays.

that's potentially too close to home (pun intended) to be funny

I finished off a fifth of JD yesterday (not all in one sitting ) and am looking to buy some good bourbon in its place (JD is Tennessee whiskey). Any recommendations out there? I want something smooth that you can drink straight but not so expensive it will break the bank, and you will not feel bad about mixing - say in a Manhattan. The only bourbon's I've ever drank before are cheap stuff like Jim Bean (retch, too harsh). I think I've downed Wild Turkey shots at some point too...

while your inane posts to this forum, OTOH, are "interesting"?

...suck ass. WTF???? another wasted few hours last night watching those ass clowns. fortunately my power went out in the fourth quarter and forced me to do something else

and lawyers are behind the scenes "plying their trade"

I agree wholeheartedly. so do I. but lawyers are one or two rungs lower.

you are

This is all much ado about nothing. Another symptom of the pathetic "news" media in a slow-news cycle.

That's what YOU'RE here for. And then you die, right Mr. Atheist? And as usual YOU miss the point. If you will summarily dismiss the charitable contributions of "conservatives" because they often go to Churches and religious charities, then, in all fairness, one must look into the charities to which "liberals" donate their money. Let's do a full and complete analysis of exactly where these monies go. Of course there is an implicit implication in this argument from you naysayers of this report that "liberals" don't donate to Churches or religious charities, which is bullshit too. Of course they do. But the secular atheists on this list only reveal their own anti-religious lifestyle and biases in pointing out the "religion-based" charitable contributions of "Conservatives".

And you refute facts that are, um, "inconvenient" to your world view. Speaking of categorization of charity, let's exclude contributions to art museums, ballets, symphonies, and the like - all favorite places for rich liberals to dump their cash.

Hot Carl goes on lots of expensive, international trips, impresses the local sluts with his wit, while he plies them with booze and bangs 'em in between trips to the backcountry. It's very impressive.

Why do you swallow?

Yeah, kind of like those idiots who think Stalin did "good things too" and communists had "good intentions", so it's OK if they left a 100 million body count in the last century.

The irony of this statement is overwhelming.

:lmao: except for bush, right Trashie has merely proven once again his inability to be consistent or logical about anything.

READ HIS 2ND INAUGURAL ADDRESS

And a devout Christian. Especially consider his 2nd Inaugural Address. It makes Bush look secular by comparison. Guess you've got to hate him as a religious fanatic mixing church and state.

Unfortunately for your argument, 'Bullshit!' and 'should be able to' appear nowhere in the Constitution. What does appear is the following: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment XIV: Privileges or immunities, due process, elections and debt. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; Succession would constitute a law that would certainly abridge the privileges of the citizens of the United States (living in the succeeding states) by removing their United States citizenship entirely. And, BTW, your marriage analogy is ludricrous. Next... the fourteenth amendment was ratified in 1868, Trashie. you can not use it argue the illegality of the secession of the south.

\ Indeed! And I will go one step further and suggest that this is a fundamental human right - the right of self-determination. Just look at all the artificial, imperialist-era borders that have caused wars, ethnic cleanshing and endless conflict in the last 100 years. The artificial borders in Iraq are a case-in-point. Wilson had some good ideas - too bad the Allied victors were so short-sighted.

I have a problem with the way congressional hearings are held. It is just a bunch of political posturing and demagoguery. "Questions" are actually endless political diatribes. Something needs to be done about it, so they can work again.

John Edward's brought up Cheney's lesbian daughter during a debate. Less LSD - and you might enhance your memory.

You asked me? On this forum? Sorry, I'm not up for the dog-pile action of all the ass-clowns. I'll pass.