That statement when Bush says it, reminds me of a sociopath, someone who is unable to feel anything or have empathy for anyone other than themselves.

If you just screwed up something or someone, even if you had the best intentions, don't you feel a little bad at least? Some remorse for your error? I mean do you feel at peace when you emotionally hurt someone, even if not on purpose?

Sorry but sometimes Bush reminds me of the sociopath who oblivious to the pain he creates, tortures squirrels in the woods in his perfect isolated peace.

I have more advertisement recommendations for the RNC:

Which do the Republican Presidential candidates support more?

Gay Republicans or Gay Liberals?

Milk and Cookies or War in Iraq?

Hillory Clinton or Saddam Hussein?

Bin Laden or Nancy Pelosi?

Bill of Rights or National Security?

Supporting the troops by getting them killed or

Supporting the troops by keeping them in the middle of a multi layered generational civil war?

Who do they think think they are fooling with an ad like that - I mean besides the dumbAsses out there.

Maybe that's the issue, Thomas knows he is unqualified. He doesn't speak during hearings, perhaps because he can't keep up with the proceedings and doesn't want to expose his shortcomings and lack of mental facility.

He hates himself for his shorcomings and because of this hates affirmative action. He knows that in his case it failed, because someone truly undeserving got to be a Justice.

The macho posturing has gone up to absurd levels since 9/11. So many pasty faced politicians and pundits who "talk tough" most assuredly could not even handle a bad manicure, never mind a war zone. They confuse being tough in office politics as the same as being tough on a battlefield. Those who are made to be warriors, who in fact are tough by nature and inclination do not posture. A look at the republican presidential debates I believe makes my point.

But on feminism, this struck a note for me:

"...keep the work force staffed for the benefit of the 2% of our society who own 90% of the wealth."

I always thought feminism played unwittingly into the wealthy ruling class. The norm used to take one breadwinner to support a household, now the norm is two breadwinners per household. Who wins here? Aren't the owners of industry and wealth happy to get two units of work for one unit of household pay, versus one unit of work for one unit of household pay? They made out like bandits.

This is not to say that women were not surpressed, and in many cases treated like cattle, or some other object. Feminism was and is still a required movement. Women are still not treated equally. However some of the solutions achieved by the feminist movement helped produce the unfavorable wealth distribution we see today.

What the Dems don't get is, that this is the age when bullshit triumphs over truth. It is a property of the age. Look at Iraq veteran Brian McGoughs response to Rushs alternately condecending and critical remarks of him. Brian spoke with truth, experience and with dignity. Rush just ran bullshit.

Fat asses like Rush, blowhards like BO and other republican miscreants gain the upper hand in the debate. How does this happen?

Bullshit over truth - sign o the times.

Republicans give up their honour and dignity everyday playing vile games, how many dems are willing to recognize the age we are in and respond in kind? And should they?

"...can we just say right now that clearchannel is an arm of the Republican Party?"

Yes, but we didn't have to wait this long to say so. They have a history. It is interesting to note though how clear channels arrogance has blossommed to such a degree that they feel they can do something this blatant. It seems, according to clearchannel, it is not the publics airwaves, its the RNCs airwaves.

It's 9/11.

Symbols of our financial strength (twin towers)were bombed from the air. Symbols of our military power (pentagon) were bombed from the air. Washington D.C. (government authority)was bombed from the air, oops funny how that is the one attack that did not succeed. Politicians get lucky and fate is fickle.

The reality was that half the country was pissing in their pants with fear, and the other half were just pissed and wanted to go bomb some country and kill people since damn, the USA is the only country allowed to bomb other countries. Anyways, after a traumatic national event, a morally corrupt politician exploiting this fear and anger can lead people down a road where suddenly things like torture,warrantless surveillance, and worse are accepted. Bush did this all too well to a susceptible nation.

What's sad is Larry Craig.

What is clear is that Bush often does not come close to representing the facts of an issue. I can speculate that he knows he is lying but feels morally justified in doing so, but I don't know, I am not a mind reader. But is it such a stretch to believe that Bush thinks that torture will save innocent American lives, and torturing a few people here and there is morally justified, as well as the lying to cover it up, if it saves thousands? Never mind the fallacy that torturing anybody has never proven to save anyone except on a television spy show, but the only alternative to him being a conscious liar is that he enjoys being compulsively ignorant.

And here's my question to Bush and his protecting us mumbo-jumbo:

If our goverment maintaining unparalleled killing/torture security and military systems protects our health and safety, isn't it also a good idea for our government to maintain a sensible healthcare system that protects the health and safety of at least our children as well?

Who da thunk, Hitler was a liberal.