KaskadskyjKozak

the precedent is to confirm the President's nominees unless they are grossly unqualified. BTW - eat s**t.

Are you in the top 50%? If so, and you feel so bad about the "widening gap between rich and poor", nothing is stopping YOU from donating a portion of YOUR salary to someone in the bottom 10% thereby equalizing your income with theirs. Go for it. Oh, yeah, I forgot, the definition of rich for a liberal is: "someone who makes more than me" or better yet "a conservative who makes more than me and doesn't work in arts or entertainment, or head a left-wing interest group"

JFK was the last Democrat president that I respect. I can even overlook his dalliances, for unlike Bubba, at least he had affairs with attractive women.

Republicans believe in democracy and follow the constitution as constructionists, and are more fair-minded. They realize that when the president is a Democrat, he has the right to nominate his choice for supreme court justices. Democrats are like whiny little children who kick, scream, and cry foul when they don't get their way.

It is hypocritical bullshit to claim the Nazis were not elected democratically and simultaneously claim Chavez was. You're playing semantic games. His party was elected with a plurality, and he followed democratic processes in Germany at that time to become chancellor. Now piss off, I have better things to do than waste my time on you.

His party won a plurality of votes in a democratic election. The point is that calling an election democratic does not justify its results, the person elected, or the government when it morphs into something far from "democratic". Of course, that isn't obvious to you all in the case of Chavez, because your goal in life is to be contrarian in all matters of US foreign policy positions because you hate Bush: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

He was through his party's victory. Go read a history book. Dru's posting on the other thread is just an exercise in useless semantic games, meant merely to obfuscate - modus operandi for liberals. Just because Chavez was "elected" does not mean the process was anywhere near to the principles of democracy, nor is he given a carte blanc to act however he wishes once he gained power. You liberals are so f**ked in the head with your rationalizations that it's unbelievable.

You seem to be having great trouble answering my above question regarding the particular points made in the movie that you deem fallacious. You are beginning to sound like Pat Robertson, relying on emotive innuendo devoid of substance. You hit the nail on the head.

Hitler was elected Chancellor through a democratic process.

I'll accept your rhetorical response as an admission of defeat. BTW; it's l-a-b-o-r. Silly Canuck-English spelling.

12 ... tomahawks?

I climbed Snow King the following weekend. A great scramble with awesome views. We were also nailed by those #*(&(&*(*# yellowjackets. I got at least a dozen stings...

the same "good majority" that reelected dubya?

no

Not funny but sad. Both parties have repeatedly granted China MFN status, and supported agreements like NAFTA.

Seeing the Democrat party nominate a moron like Kerry and watching him lose by 3% points to a mediocre president - THAT was priceless.

Never fear! Opportunistic liberal Bush-hating vultures are on their way to make gratuitous attacks against his adimistration for their political gain and to express their sour grapes at losing all three branches of power.

dunno. let's have a PPV event and find out. we could make a fortune - more than the gasoline-price-gougers

Missouri isn't near the gulf coast. Give an engineer a few facts and he'll connect them anydamn way he pleases. Insert Hoover joke here. The point is that hurricanes hit the SE every year, and you don't need to wait long for guaranteed disaster. Earthquakes are rarer, and don't seem to be as devastating - even the worst ones. Do you remember anything like the chaos we saw in New Orleans after the '89 quake in the bay area or the Northridge quake on SoCal? No. I lived in California for 23 years, and lived through multiple quakes over 6.0 - no big deal. I would not be able to say the same for clas 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes, now would I? California with its earthquakes is often cited as being just as crazy a place to live as the SE with their hurricanes, but this just isn't true. And, the worst earthquakes will occur in the midwest, not the west coast, something about the geology, as I recall. I believe that was what Selkirk was referring to. Moreover, to cite volcanoes as an equivalent risk for those in the PNW is ludicrous. Mt. Saint Helens is the only eruption that occurred in most of our lifetimes (compared to how many hurricanes in the SE?), and the loss of life, and damage to populated areas was minimal. If Rainier were to erupt, it would be much more devastating, but the likelihood is very low, and the event would be more likely singular - unlike the repeating, seasonal hurricanes that strike the SE.

and lawyers

And cut their staff and office budgets in half too.

cut corporate welfare and pork spending = 100's billions

science is only convenient when it supports your world-view

If you think I'd sit around and watch the world go by, You're thinking like a fool, 'cause it's a case of do or die, Out there is a fortune waiting to be had, You think I'd let it go? You're mad, You've got another thing coming.

there ain't no such thing as a free lunch