If a word can have any definition you want it to have, what's the point of the word?

Is anyone in the US government paying attention? This is how you win a generations-long war - you present the best of your ideas and culture, make sure the citizens have access, and show how your side is more appealing than the other side.

This would be the single most effective strategy in dealing with Iran. Of course, it's not as satisfying as blowing shit up, so there you go.

It's "once in a while." I've seen this incorrect usage quite a lot lately, and I imagine that since this was spoken originally it was up to the discretion of the writer.

Well, the writer got it wrong.

If it had said THE PRESIDENT in that last item, this post would've said something like "Don't they know he won't be the President at that time? Finding it awfully hard to let go, aren't they?"

Alex, this was retarded.

And if that's your response, you've gone and proven him right.

I'm still waiting for that phone call from Gov. Paterson's office.

How long can they make their puppets dance?

"It was flubbed, you'll have to do it again."

"They actually did it? Holy shit."

"Um... there was no Bible. You'll have to do it again."

"I can't believe they keep falling for this!"

"Now hop up and down while you do it. And, um, you have to say it backwards."

Everyone's falling into their traditional roles. The right wing says stupid things, and the left wing follows blindly. That's change I can believe in!

Patrick, how many times (say, out of 100) does that exact same scenario lead to no loss of life? Or let's put it a different way - with a different flight crew, what are the chances there are 0 deaths?

I wonder if Palin will read her book once it's finished, or if we'll hear her saying "I never said that!" when people ask her about certain passages.

Where I work I'm not allowed to order the note pads with perforations at the top. I get the crappy gummed ones that keep falling apart.

Obama needs to say this:

We don't need your votes to pass this thing. So you've got two options here. Get behind the concessions I've offered you, or I'm pulling the bill entirely, rewriting it, and passing it without your help or input.

Your move, Boehner.

In environmental terms, is it worse to make a new, more fuel-efficient car or to continue using a fuel-inefficient car? The answer may seem obvious, but a new car has all kinds of environmental costs, including mining/fabrication of the materials, manufacture, and delivery.

I would suspect driving a car into the ground isn't as bad as it seems when you look at it this way.

Why the hell are the Democrats giving the Republicans ANY concessions? The Repubs have made it very clear they're not voting for this thing, and so everything the Democrats strip is a victory for them with absolutely no payment necessary.

The Democrats rolling over every time the Republicans look at them funny: Change YOU can believe in!

And yet they still got their fucking tax cuts and other concessions.

God damn it, Obama got played for a fool.

Sweden is still neutral. Very proudly neutral. So I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying Sweden was neutral while Switzerland is currently neutral.

King, you didn't tag 25 of your friends!

I'm disappointed to see you refer to these people as "pro-life." The more accurate term is "anti-choice."

See how they're doing it? They're calling the pro-choice side "pro-abortion," which is the same strategy except, you know, lying. Calling them "anti-choice" has the benefit of being correct.

This was the only option to drag the GOP into the 21st century. I'm kind of sad they made the right choice.

Two major parties in a majority white nation, each currently headed by African Americans.

Holy cow, Tim Kaine's black?! Has anyone told him?

When the final history of the United States is written, Ronald Reagan will go down as the man who started our economic and moral downfall. Running up enormous debt in order to increase the size of the military and commit atrocities around the world could (and I hope it's not) be seen as the beginning of the end, with GW Bush the guy who pushed us over the edge. Reagan was a disaster.

On another note, there's this: his father, a Polaroid executive who raised Norquist in the Boston suburbs, taught his young son to hate taxes at the Daily Joy ice-cream parlor by taking the first two licks of his son’s cone and calling it the income and sales tax.

The man's father raised him to be an idiot. If you were offered an ice cream with 2 licks out of it or no ice cream at all, which would you prefer? Any sane person would say the former is the better option. The anarchists on the right would say the latter. And make no mistake, that's what it is when you literally want no government as Norquist so publicly has stated. He and his disciples are anarchists, who would prefer no government so only the elite can have any control at all.

They loathe us. You and me. They hate us and they hate the government because government gives us power they think should rightfully belong to them. And this is another Reagan legacy. His movement mainstreamed the idea of utter anarchy.