This is hilarious. The tragic aspect of it is that I can hear the faux 'news' storm troopers reading this as a 'news' story with a straight face.

The fear of the reich wingnuts is stunning. Not only is the land of ther free and the home of the brave unable to have an open trial of a terrorist in NYC, it is still unable to investigate crimes of the past, even though a relatively new democracy with a history of being under a totalitarian boot is able to do just that.

Maybe Obama and those pulling his leash should ask the Lithuanians how its done.

Glen Beck = Julius Streicher...we know what rightfully happened to him.

why can't the US? How is it that America, which according to the right, is the strongest, most free nation on the planet, can't run a trial for a alleged terrorist without putting large numbers of people at risk? How is it that Britain, India, Spain and Indonesia can run these sorts of trials without the reich wingnuts getting their panties in a twist?

Such courage when it comes to advocating "action" by others in a far off corner of the world, but such cowardice when it comes to standing by your principles at home.

Don't send her to jail...she'd be great to have around in the lead up to the 2010 elections

Murder in the name of god is so dangerous because the perpetrators can look you in the eye, smile, and say they are listening to a higher power; they are beyond reasoning with.

I find it ironic that you would suggest Obama needs to "grow some" when virtually all the members of the previous administration who were thumping their chests like so many chicken hawks had never served in any capacity. Recall Cheney and his claim to have had other priorities during the Vietnam era. Recall Bush and his mysterious admission into the Texas Air National Guard (aka, the champaign division). And look where all that bravado got the US; hundreds of billions wasted in Iraq and no further progress in A'stan.

No sir, I'll take a president who offers measured responses to emerging problems. Otherwise, what's the difference between the president and the howling press corps? If that be the case, who needs a president at all; why not just turn the running of the country over to Sunday morning talk show hosts?

I take my referrences from the reports published by the IPCC, the body that is made up of REAL scientists (as opposed to novilists), business people and politicians from over 130 countries. They act as a clearing house for REAL peer-reviewed science on the subject of global warming. In order for any statements to make it into one of those reports, it must be accepted by everyone in the IPCC. This means that, rather than exaggerating the problem, the reports tend to downplay them in a "lowest common denominator" method.

When the IPCC backs down from its claims of early 2008 that global warming is real and backs down from the idea that humans are responsible for the problem (they sited their certainty at 95%), I'll take your claims seriously. Other wise, you are simply a more articulate version of the conborg hacks that wallow in the muck of denial.

You make accusations of lying without reference to any specific issue. This is very poor logic, as it is simply throwing mud, much like a 3 year old.

Now how about your heros shrub & dick...as honest as the day is long, eh?

deficits don't matter (unless they may be used to help those in true need).

please tell me what the risk of bankruptcy caused by health care costs, or premature death caused by a lack of access to preventive care has to do with "personal freedom".

If that's your definition of personal freedom, I'll take my socialist hell hole any day.

As for "free stuff", our medical system is paid for out of general tax revenues. Its not free, although the costs are somewhat hidden. I consider such taxes to be the rent I pay to live in a civilized society, a rent that I would gladly pay if I lived in the US.

But then, that's the difference between you and I; you think freedom is license to screw those less fortunate, while I think that freedom outside the bounds of a social contract is mere anarchy.

I could easily argue the merits of the case by having a single sheet of paper in front of me with the facts on it. In fact, it wouldn't be an argument; all I'd have to do is recite the facts over and over again and be patient enough to withstand her accusations of being part of some GREAT CONSPIRACY.

It would actually be beneath my ability to use reason and logic, skills I picked up while completing my Liberal Arts degree 25 years ago.

Squaresville...prove he lying or SHUT UP!! Point to the part of the legislation that proves you are correct. Or am I still missing your point??

I'm not sure how preventive care wouldn't keep costs in line. Quick access to a walkin clinic to catch something like strep or mono (as my family doctor was able to do with my daughter, free of charge) is surely cheaper than not attending to the symptoms, seeing the illness become full blown and seeing her hospitalized.

I do agree with you on lifestyle issues, but then the repukes would likely accuse Obama of being a communist/fascist.

I'm speechless. Tell him to come to Canada; he'd pack every hall in country. If Obama isn't going to respond to this (how could he?), does the WH have a designated pit bull who can call these asswads out for what they are?

if the investigation was aimed at who wrote the policies?

Paulpsd7...couldn't agree more on where this is going. I wish I felt different.