We don't need this crap. Thanks.

But darn it all, Evan Bayh did make a reasonable case for not deliberately alienating Lieberman right off the bat out of anger.

For God's sake, wake up and listen to the drivel coming out of your mouth.

Lieberman is one of the architects of the Iraq war. He's strongly supported the worst President the US ever had.

He's pushed endlessly for war with Iran, for nuclear war with Iran. You do understand that if the US dropped a nuclear weapon on Tehran, as Lieberman has suggested, that millions would die?

It's not just that Lieberman is an awful Democrat, nor even just that he's been terribly, terribly bad for the United States: it's that Lieberman has shown time and time again that he's an awful human being.

I'm trained as a mathematician; I'm a skeptical guy; but I'm also wary of GMOs. Why? Because the people who make 'em have made no real attempt to systematically discover if there are any issues, and I don't believe claims without evidence.

Remember; these are the same people who told us that DDT was completely harmless; that dioxin wasn't a big issue; etc. etc. you know book and verse. And these people are managed by some of the same group of predatory 80s MBAs who led our economy into the mess it is now.

Believing scientific claims without scientific evidence is not science.

If you actually look at a lot of claims of "safety" for food or drugs, the actual evidence is dubious. Did you know, for example, that there hasn't been a single study of the long-term effects of Prozac (or at least, as of two years ago when I looked into this more deeply)?

I think once the magnitude of the failure sinks in, he's going to be unwelcome outside his ranch.

Consider the tens of thousands of permanently broken kids whose parents are going to have to spend the rest of their lives nursing them; consider all the people who have already and are about to lose their jobs and might never work again; consider all the people of New Orleans; these are individuals who'll provide the basis for a good, solid hate of the smirking chimp.

My prediction? Divorce, a decent into alcoholism, a consequent death within a decade or so.

for the indecent ex-President.

Luckily, I don't believe in fate...

What, exactly, are we supposed to make of this?

That people can be rational enough to wear suits and talk to a microphone but still be batshitinsane?

From the first page: "for a Republican Party that is firmly committed to, for example, citing pork-barrel spending to fight waste and inefficiency in government,"

As everyone knows, the last three Republican administrations have not simply spent individually more than any other President: put together they've literally spent more deficit money than any other organization has throughout human history.

The whole article is full of this crap.

Look: we know these people exist, we've had eight years of them. Can't you find some rational conservatives, people who might actually have something truthful and thoughtful to say?

I've seen LOLcats a zillion times but I still had a nice laugh from this. (I agree, however, not mentioning 4chan is an omission...)

This was a man who suffered from kidney failure and needed dialysis every few days to live! Do you really think he's been living in caves since 2001 - with a dialysis machine?!

We haven't heard from him in years - why wouldn't he comment on the election? There's no profit to him to remain silent.

The last we saw of him was in 2006 and that appeared to my eyes to be an obvious con-job - where the video freezes right before the audio track starts to talk about current events.

He's been dead for years. I'm very surprised Mr. Obama's brought it up.

If the roulette wheel shows up black 10 times in a row, red isn't "due" - and people have lost serious money on that very bet.

In fact, if a roulette wheel kept coming up black, you'd be more rational to suspect it was biased, rather than having some magical memory of the past that was now going to make it favour red.

In the same way, the fact that we've had seven years without a serious etc. accident doesn't mean we're "due". If accidents were truly random, it'd mean that the chance of an accident is the same as ever. But in fact, a rational person might conclude that those seven years were because the safety system was in fact working well, and revise estimates of the chances of crashing downwards.

I have to say that I fly a lot and I just never worry.

I'm much more worried when I step into a car. I've been in minor car accidents, I've seen major ones, friends of mine have been injured in car accidents, I've had people I'd met killed in them; no one I ever knew was in any sort of plane disaster. The statistics bear me out - each year, more Americans alone die in cars than all the people who've ever died in planes in the history of aviation.

But even then I don't worry. The chances are small. If I worried about everything, I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning - not that I always do.