I'm the last guy to agree with the republicans, but I'm ex-military and while I think this is an illegal war resulting in the shameful criminal deaths of hundreds of thousands if not more, Democrats should be rabidly pursuing an END to the war and the criminal prosecutions of those responsible for ordering it, not passing end-run bills that in the long-term hamper the ability of the military to accomplish its mission, especially in the case where the military has an actual legal mission that we're all seriously depending on them to be successful at for all our sakes.

I know it sounds harsh to say you don't want the members of the military to not spend as much time as possible with their families but the military IS harsh. You can't approach the military with the same principals and ideals you'd approach employment at your average non-lethal corporation.

Honestly I'd say I'd rather the military spend ALL their time with their families, BUT if called to duty, legal duty, I'd expect them to give their all to fulfill that mission, not perchance have the mission fail because this law forced them home.

All I'm saying is end the war, not the military. (though ending the military is an interesting subject to discuss as well)

Despite the question and answer being on the record, this tool, actually changes them both. You have to wonder why he reached for so little?

Given the latitude that the MSM is giving these people, he might as well have said, "Actually the question was 'do you think President Bush should be crowned king of the world' and the Amb. reply was 'Yes, I think it is a good idea'"

I was going to rant a big rant about this but really whats the big deal? Racist airs racist views. Old news for anyone familiar with O'Reilly.

You know what, I've been arguing with some Bush fans about this for a while, (Not that you are one, though you may be).

They say they LIKE Bush's down home stupidity. It makes them feel he's one of them.

Well my response to them and to you Jaycg9, and anyone else defending this is this: Is it so wrong to hold the person we elect to be the leader of our country to a higher ideal of intelligence? Is it wrong to want the leader of the most powerful country in the world to be an intellectual? Ya I can admit I'd have problems with some of those names. But having to say those names isn't part of my job! It's like hiring a plumber and have him show up with a dogeared copy of "Plumbing for Dummies" with him. You're not an idiot if you can't pronounce Ahmadinejad's name, but you are if your the goddamn President of the U.S.A.!

Edwards is using Katrina to point out our government's failures

Giuliani (Hypothetically) is using 9/11 to point to his successes (also hypothetical)

After the MSM's failure to appropriately cover the 2000 election, the run up to the Iraq war and the 2004 election its hard say whom I wish more pain and humiliation on, Bush or the MSM (its bush). I mean, the founders of this country guaranteed a freedom of the press because they KNEW one day our government would reach too far and our only hope to stave off the destruction of what they hoped America would be, would be a free and robust press. So for all the damn arrogance our MSM exhibits with their 'fourth estate' attitude, when the country needed them the most for the very purpose they exist to serve they were worthless. So fuck bush, fuck rather, fuck CBS and there executives and their stockholders. Now the internet, blogs, and outlets like Salon are far more what our founding fathers had in mind when they guaranteed a free press than the obscene corporate behemoths that market news to us like any other shitty bad-for-us product Americans are mind-fucked into consuming.

Don't remember where I read it but I was certainly under the impression a lot of it had to do with the hormones injected into meat and chicken. This was specifically seen in the economically lower strata of our society where a greater amount of diet is focused on cheap mass produced meat and chicken and the girls of this group were seen to have the earliest onset puberty.

This is horrifying.

Yes I agree that being arrested for NOT actually engaging in any activity is an injustice and a frightening misuse of police power however there are injustices that happen everyday to the people of this country who are the least able to defend themselves, which is probably why they are the target of these injustices. That being said, considering the victim of this injustice, I think its fair to revel in it.

Considering what he did was signal his desire for sex, i consider it an injustice. Can you imagine a guy in a bar, going up to a girl and saying, "How about it?" and getting arrested for it? Considering the real underlying crime he was arrested for was being gay, ya I consider it an injustice. Again that being said, glad it happened to a homophobe hypocrite repub.

"Each invention only benefited the species that invented it."

Though that indeed is how the dynamic is seen to work, one of the goals of evolution is biodiversity. For a system to be successful in the long run, it needs to be stable and able to withstand shocks to the system. Thus while a benefit to a species may seem to benefit that species only, in the larger picture, it benefits everybody. Successes promote diversity.