StevenSeagal

No one is hella Above the Law. No one! You oughta kept driving Into the Sun.

How much did you make last year? That's what I thought.

I'm hella Hard to Kill.

Ask Him to give Seahawks an IQ boost.

Except Adam and Eve. The old guy seems to have really screwed up here. Guess he ain't Above the Law.

Wow. Guess this means torture is okay after all!

Whatever. How about taking a stand, you pussy.

Yeah? Well, justice calls in places far and wide, not just this filthy den of subversion. Get in line. I got bigger fish to fry. Besides. Abstinence can be very zen. Gotta go now.

Easy, become a Mormon. She said, find a lady, not your 13 year old cousin.

の上の性交を締めなさい

STFU NOOB

"arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint." ummm, I think everyone you mention above has acknowledged this as fact. "fiscal constraint" and Bush are like oil and water What it's matter how much he spends? He's keeping us safe isn't he? So which one are you, a commie or a terrorist? By the way, you forgot to capitalize "Ummm", and there's no period at the end of your sentence. Not that I really noticed.

STFU nOOb!

Yeah, real cool. Now I'm even more glad to know that desert land managers are so concerned about banning climbing, what with all the destruction to the land that it causes.

Or maybe you've gone blind from jerking it, assclown. Dipshit click here

Goddamn Feds!!!

Nice all caps and lack of a period.

Gotta love how the majority of the negative responses: 1) attack the author's grammar 2) attack the source (fake author) 3) do anything but address the points raised in the letter Nice lack of capitalization.

Why is it somehow preferable to have that same meddling control instead be wielded by energy monopolies that arbitrarily inflate prices of oil, electricity, etc- which in turns causes prices of everything (food, etc.) to go up- and which are simultaneously rolling in record profits each quarter and providing their CEO's with $400 million dollar "bonuses"? Doesn't this level of power in fact control the "day to day lives of citizenry", except that the citizenry has no real recourse to change that policy?

32 mpg by 2014 - period. Not bad, although if not for decades of resistance from oil and auto industries it could already have surpassed that value a long time ago, and without long term financial detriment to either industry. I remember cars in the 80's getting 40-50 mpg. How is it that mpg standards have in fact declined? I don't buy this pessimist/can't-do attitude of "it's too expensive", "it's impossible". Your tone suggests that you think there ought not to be any. Am I wrong? It's funny, I was going to suggest that the energy industries are in fact already an arm of the government, given that their money and lobbyists essentially dictate government policy. Yes, there are regulations in place. But for example, mpg standards haven't been amended since 1975, while the number of vehicles and the population have increased dramatically, while technologies have also advanced. Aren't jobs going overseas because wages are cheaper? I'm sorry I'm not an economist, but how is this outsourcing a direct result of the regulation of polluting emissions? industry has to pass off the costs by not hiring American workers?

So what would you suggest as a policy, in terms of emissions control and pollution standards? Should there be any regulation on industries that have potential to pollute? And who should decide that? The polluter? Should there be any accountability and oversight?

Both teats taste pretty good! That's a good article, thanks for posting that. In turn this leads to a good point: the whole issue of global warming being real/not real has resulted in a stalemate or at least, loggerheads, over any legislation related to emission controls and the progression of cleaner technologies. Because whether global warming is a major threat or not, these issues are in fact important to everyone the world over- wouldn't you agree?

Here's a link to an interesting article: Global Warming Deniers Both sides like to look at the motivation behind the other's assertions. Read the article and examine who is behind the anti-global warming information campaign. Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that an agenda driven by the desire to maintain insane profits through monopolistic holds on energy distribution is far more motivated and nefarious than some hippie who simply wants to stick it to big business. So whether you believe that the earth is in a natural cycle- and yes, it very could be to some extent- it is at the very least curious to consider the source of most "evidence" attempting to debunk global warming. When it's from industry tycoons paying scientists off to write bogus reports, and from well connected, obese radio talk show hosts who claim to know more about climatology than climatologists, that should raise some questions. Now, go see this movie:

Talk about a wet blanket! In your case...blanket party!