some cats have a lot more attachment than people think, their fur doesn't get you dirty, they don't eat poop and you can leave them alone, and they ARE more entertaining utube performers!

it is simply a regurgitation of right wing propaganda that has been created and implanted by those who have ALWAYS opposed ANY imposition in any form on the perogatives of wealth combined and helped along by people who were/are upset by the cultural changes of the sixties. One of the major problems that we are going to have fixing things is the lack of historical knowledge on the part of the American people. They don't know much so things gets filled in with self serving propaganda and emotion.

then it is probably true that some, not all obviously, men are "intimidated" by successful women.

that there were 40 years of increasing GENERAL prosperity (from the mid 30s to the mid 70s), meaning things GOT BETTER in terms of REAL PURCHASING POWER for the MAJORITY. This resulted from liberal government and had never happened before. The right was ALWAYS against it and by 1980 they got their chance to start really reversing it under Reagan which they have taken full advantage of up until now. Don't think everyone is as stupid and uninformed as a dittohead.

oh God.

nothing much is going to change.

it was all stolen from the Egyptians anyway, so I guess they can take the blame for the whole mess.

Not only are they not the same thing but to try and use both arguments simultaneously against govt stimulus is completely incoherent-no doubt explaining the attraction that doing so has for wingnuts.

40% will believe absolutely anything that wingnut central tells them to, it's ludicrously obvious insantity is completely irrelevant to them. The only thing they care about is whether constant repetition can attract enough of the uninformed to get them to 51%. It's worked or come close most of the time, so they are sticking with it.

sensible shoes isn't going to work for a mass market.

even those who don't literally believe this, and of course many do, are infected by the culture that having people who do belive this as your base creates. So there is never any voluntary republican compromise. There can be compromise, but only when they have no other choice. Of course the process needs to be managed so that there is the best possible chance for things to work well going forward, but it is a given that there are only two things that can happen: the democrats can win ugly or they can lose.

and while we are at it we can devote lots of time discussing whether the evidence for evolution is compelling, and FINALLY have a REAL debate on the controversy over whether the earth is round or flat.

just the vast majority of the most substantial ones and all the ones that have relevance to the current situation.

the republicans had a lot of input into the house bill, but they voted no anyway. This was the deal: Dems give the republicans a bunch of tax cuts and a smaller bill and the republicans support the bill. The Dems delivered and when it was time for the Republicans to do their side of the compromise they refused. What is pointless is compromise where only one side gives anything. This is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN WHAT REPUBLICANS MEAN AND THE ONLY THING THEY MEAN BY BIPARTISANSHIP AND COMPROMISE. Now ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE knows it.

You might just be on to something there. (Actually, in spite of all the "global warming skepticism" and other silliness she isn't REALLY a true wingnut, so I admit to some curiosity about how far this mutual admiration society will go; if they are living together and REALLY forced to get to know each other it could be fun).

it's now clear to everybody what is what.

It isn't really true that they only use nonviolent methods and they would be a lot more violent if they could get away with it.

the dems could block tax cuts and the republicans could block spending. Deficit reduction (at least the degree it was achieved) wasn't really the first choice of either side-in Congress anyway.

as is often said and it is true; unstable crosses and mistreatment are the biggest problem. Is there going to be a comprehensive legal code distinguishing between various breeds and crosses and setting appropriate rules for each.

so people know better than to let a dog which is anything other than totally reliable get anywhere near a member of the public. Even so there are dogs everywhere getting shoved and jostled in crowds by totally strangers and none of them ever acting aggressively towards anybody. Not every dog can do it, but many can. In fact people here are so accustomed to not having to worry about any dogs they do encounter in public and it can be a problem when they get out of the bubble into less civilized places.

This is the heart of the matter historically. The rich were ALWAYS against the New Deal/any form of social insurance, but the vast majority of the poor/working class knew, finally (when the depression hit) that they needed the govt to manage capitalism. Even so if Roosevelt had stood up for civil rights there is a good chance that the rich/racist/religion/traditional values coalition could have and would have blocked the New Deal. When, finally, the Democrats DID support civil rights in the sixties this coalition did take power with the election of Nixon and cemented their rule with Reagan (Watergate caused a temporary stumble) and has misgoverned (or saboraged) the country ever since.

No. The public policy question is: why in hell was she given fertility treatment?