Ahhhhhh, but Bush didn't spend the amount of money on the entire war to help you stay ALIVE from terrorist attacks....
Is there any chance you'd allow the current administration co-opt the catchphrase that has come from the noise machine from the past administration?
Because, when you think of it...OVER THE COURSE OF HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY,
there has not been ONE attack on US soil during the Obama Administration.
Bush only "kept us safe"
since 9/11....
Isn't spin fun?
The banks. I agree with you, Roy, and I already blamed the banks (here or in other threads somewhere already) for giving out loans to people they should have KNOWN wouldn't be able to pay those bills in the future. The low interest rates aren't at fault - it's dumb & greedy people on BOTH sides of the bank counter.
And with no regulations, it's apparent that the banks found this to be an "acceptable level of risk". (Because it was NO risk.)
Actually, my post was originally misleading in some ways. Confiscation of arms was actually the spark that started the revolutionary fire - that at some incidents where Americans were killed (even though they DID kinda start the fight) - and not the <2% taxation. Taxation is emphasized because Americans now think money drives EVERYTHING, but that was only one small factor hidden behind MOST of the other factors that really did spark the war.
Regardless of whether it was taxation or confiscation, the colonists HAD NO REPRESENTATION. That's why Tom's reply was cogent, direct, relevant, and to the point. That's why the "Tea Parties" were mocked across all but the most right-wing of media outlets. I'm all for getting behind a cause, and the freedom of expression via public protests (and wouldn't it have been deliciously ironic if the current administration deemed it necessary to have designated "free speech zones" on April 15th like the last administration did when their employers decided to protest?) - but if the historical context is missing or ignored, it renders the "protest" pointless.
Basically, it was sour grapes and a whole bunch of butthurt by those who LOST in November.
Bread and circuses - that's what has been voted in again. When an administration can buy votes with public dollars, I don't have to like it.
You've made the claim - now cite the evidence.
If people who are on the government dole weren't allowed to vote, I would agree that this would settle any option for disagreement that think I have.
Factoid: The amount of people on the government dole isn't all that big....and the majority of them are white.
However, I have trouble respecting a vote that is given based on race (my vote had nothing to do with anything so minor)
And the grand majority of exit polls showed that the election was won based on a "desire for change" than for "I want a minority President".
I don't know anything about this bill but why would it be considered "extremist" to require a birth certificate for the highest office in the country?
Perhaps because the eligibility requirements to hold the office of President are
already set forth in The Constitution?
My personal favorite would be to have Steven Stewart and Jon Cobert ringside anounce a cage match between Janeane Garofalo and Ted Nugent
Ted would kill her.
Literally.
Dale