Anoymust, you are definitely right that Hillary could certainly be trusted in the court appointments area.

I'm not so sure.

Hil ain't Bill.

This little quote definitely turned me off Ms Rodham..

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180016

" The AP article also stated that Clinton "said she could envision a day when 'you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,' but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."

To me this indicates that Hil is so far out of touch with the common working person she might as well be in another galaxy.

I wonder if she can envision a day when politicians have to show proof of insurance in order to run for office?

My guess is no..

It's why the MSM attacks anti-establishment candidates..

It's also why I get attacked here..

For instance, I asked LWM if he had to piss in a jar to prove he was not apostate of the state religion. LWM did not answer.

I asked again, pointing out that it is a very simple question with a one word answer.

Still no answer.

It's shame that kept LWM from answering, he does indeed piss in a jar to prove that he is not apostate. But he cannot admit this even to himself, hence he ignores the question.

It's the same with the other outrageous things I post, they make people look at things from a different point of view, one which makes them very uneasy, and yet they have no ready answer as to why I'm wrong.

The anti-establishment candidates are doing the same thing, they say things which the members of the MSM find disturbing but which they deep down realize are true.

Practically everyone would prefer not to hear disturbing truths, so they simply ignore those who are uttering them.

It's really that simple.

I appreciate you taking my back..

To go way off topic, I just wanted to mention that I never claimed a fusor was a practical reactor, merely that it worked.

The thread was already closed when I tried to post that.

It must be a sound policy since it won't be implemented immediately?

Not at all.. The point I'm making is that Paul would shake things up, something that absolutely has to be done.

But his shaking will not seriously disturb things since he will never get the establishment to go along with him.

It's the bully pulpit I wish to see Paul (or preferably Kucinich) have. The message for change must be delivered and the totally establishment MSM will not deliver it unless they are absolutely forced to do so.

Everyone has heard the old saw about you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. There's an almost equally old joke that goes if you stick his head in the water and then smash his testicles with two bricks, he's gonna drink.

Paul is the bricks.

I've been debating drug policy online for close to two decades now, several hundred thousand posts worth.

Experience is a great teacher and I've seen every reaction there is and know how people are going to react to what I say.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi.

Only the little people obey laws.

Compare and contrast:

We have a prison system full to overflowing with little people convicted often of what amounts to apostasy against the state religion.

Major corporations flagrantly break the law and are not only not punished but are positively rewarded.

I only bring it up because it appears that impunging our motives while failing to address our arguments is fast becoming SOP.

Hmm.. Sounds familiar.

Try debating drug policy sometimes if you want to have your motives impugned and your arguments ignored.

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. -Frank Herbert

A large percentage, perhaps even a majority, of politicians in Washington are what Dr Bob Altemeyer calls "double highs", ie they score high both on the right wing authoritarian scale and on the social dominance scale.

According to Dr Bob it only takes a few double highs to turn any organization into a rapacious and amoral/immoral entity.

If you have no clue what I'm talking about then you really should take a look at Dr Bob's book _The Authoritarians_. It's online in PDF format and is free to read/print/distribute as long as it is not done for profit.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Ninety eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then, we elected them.

Why vote for the lesser evil?

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=7w9kbya&s=1

I get the sense that much of his frustration stems from what I'll call Aycharaychism: The stubborn belief that you are the center of the universe and everyone everywhere thinks exactly like you do.

You have it exactly backward.. I'm on the outside, looking in.

I've been an outsider all my life, hanging with outlaw bikers while riding a crotch rocket is but one example.

Do you really and truly believe that I'm deluded enough to think that everyone else shares my point of view?

Do you disagree with my position that anyone who votes for a politician who supports the drug war is assisting the continuing slide of the US of A into a form of fascism?

I predict you will not answer this question, why not surprise me?