NEWS ALERT: President Reagan Has Died

[Ian]

I forgot also until watching the coverage today that Reagan was re-elected by every US state, except Minnesota. I don't think that has ever happened in US history.

Isn't it amazing what happens when an actor runs for president? I betcha old Arnold could be pres too if it weren't for the fact he was born outside the US.

[aviationwiz]

Isn't it amazing what happens when an actor runs for president? I betcha old Arnold could be pres too if it weren't for the fact he was born outside the US.

Oh god, if that ever happened, I'd move to Canada for sure. Thank You Founding Fathers!

[XXXXX]

Heh....like Canada is a place worth moving to. Acutally, there is already a move afoot to change that law to allow a candidate for president if they lived here for 20 or 30 years. LOL! Obviously, they are looking to The Terminator for this. It is pretty funny in many ways how similar he is to Reagan.

[MonteLDS]

Lets go over past Presidents when Clinton dies, what will people say when Carter dies what will people say? When the Elder Bush dies what will people say? Why do i hear so many bad comments comming to mind?
When Nixon died, I don't recall one good word spoken about him.

being that this Former President did some pretty good things according to a large ammount of people makes him the best we have had. I mean come on he flipped the coin in the Super Bowl, which lead the 49ers to victory!

[XXXXX]

You obviously are not watching the news listing all of his major accomplishments. Nixon was a crook, one of the worst presidents because of that. Carter did more after he was out of office. Clinton presided over a good economy, and lied under oath which was a felony...resulting in his being only the 2nd President to be impeached. That's how he will be remembered. Elder Bush got Iraq out of Kuwait, not much else. None have compared to Reagan's accomplishments. Watch the news and learn something.

[aviationwiz]

Kennedy, saving the world from Nuclear Holocaust.

[XXXXX]

How's that? I liked JFK, but not sure what you are talking about. If it is the Cuban embargo, that was a stand he took to get rid of missiles there, but hardly a decrease in nuclear warhead escalation. That was only about our response time being reduced. I admired his position on that, but its not the same as ending the cold war, reducing total warheads, and disolving the entire Soviet Union, uniting Germany after the long standing Berlin Wall was torn down, restoring self pride among Americans after the Vietnam War humiliation, starting a long period of economic recovery, reducing double digit inflation & interest rates, reduction of 90% tax rates, etc. etc.

[XXXXX]

OK, I have my new signature to match all the others who say not to make political statements in other forum categories. LOL!

[MonteLDS]

Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpus disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?

Great stuff

[pranav81]

Who is Nancy?


::Pranav::

His wife.

I read that in the local newspaper here today.

May he rest in peace.


::Pranav::

[pranav81]

Kerry is the most liberal US Senator in Washington, who has more of a sourpus disposition than Lieberman.

He sucks the way he flips and then flops...which is why he will be defeated!

Where do they get these guys?

Great stuff

Well,has aviationwiz seen this signature yet???


::Pranav::

[XXXXX]

Who do you think inspired me to give a balanced viewpoint as my sig? I noticed that making general political posts are eschewed outside of this Organic Pub section, but curiously including them as your sig, does not seem to elicit the same level of angst.

When in Rome....

[code65536]

As a libertarian, I can't say Reagan did much. Tax cuts are nice, but that bloated defense spending was ridiculous. The Soviet government was rotten to the core, with corruption and a failed economy, they would've collapsed with or without Reagan's paranoid escalation.

And the breaking of the walls of church and state wasn't exactly a great thing, either. Whatever happened to the principles upon which this country was founded? To quote one of our better Presidents, Jefferson, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Reagan seemed to forget that by aligning himself and the rest of the Republican party with the religious right and integrating their (sometimes offensive) agenda into politics. You want religion? That's fine by me. Just keep it out of the political arena! A little known fact is that Bush Sr. was pro-abortion until he became Reagan's running mate, at which point he suddenly changed his tone. I'm personally neutral on abortion, but the point is, Reagan aligned the party in a direction that alienated a number of the more traditional libertarian-styled Republicans who were absolutely horrified by his reckless defense spending and alignment with the church. And now we have this "new" Republican party started by Reagan that seems to depart more and more from what Republicans should be. I have several Republican friends who don't want to vote for Bush Jr. because of things like overbloated spending, a departure from true market economics (favoring corporations is NOT the point of capitalism), the involvement of things that should be kept out of politics (religion), the erosion of freedoms (Patriot Act). So I guess I'm an old-style Republican who now votes for Democrats because I've become disillusioned, and you're a new-style Republican--the type that caused me to defect.

His accomplishments? What accomplishments? He polarized politics, gained popularity from being an actor, and betrayed the principles of the Republican party.

(now if only the Libertarian Party wasn't dominated by a bunch of extremists who act more like anarchists than libertarians...)

[XXXXX]

Well it's good that everyone has their own opinions. The fact that you are a libertarian tells me that you are an idealist, one that wouldn't be happy with any candidate. For your information, this country was founded on a belief in God. Look at your God Damn money if you have a doubt.

None of the major party candidates are perfect, but the fact that you didn't read the list of Reagan's accomplishments I posted in this thread, nor listen to how both liberals and conservatives have touted his accomplishments, tells me you are extremely narrow minded, and emotionally judgemental. As such, there's not much point in talking to you.

It is a total waste of your vote to support or think that either the Libertarian or Green (Nader) parties represent anything other than kooky fringe groups. They will never accomplish anything because they don't represent more than a few percent of the population that is also out to lunch.

I can even find quite a number of good things in Bill "BlowJob" Clinton's presidency, and I'm a clear cut Republican. Anyone who has to dismiss Reagan's accomplishments is not in touch with reality. The Soviet Union was brought down by trying to match Reagan's intentional military buildup, and their economy could not sustain it.

Anyway, it's not worth discussing details with someone so uneducated. Go eat some organic sprouts, and let the rest of us run the country.

[ClayBuster]

Well it's good that everyone has their own opinions. The fact that you are a libertarian tells me that you are an idealist, one that wouldn't be happy with any candidate. For your information, this country was founded on a belief in God. Look at your God Damn money if you have a doubt.

None of the major party candidates are perfect, but the fact that you didn't read the list of Reagan's accomplishments I posted in this thread, nor listen to how both liberals and conservatives have touted his accomplishments, tells me you are extremely narrow minded, and emotionally judgemental. As such, there's not much point in talking to you.

It is a total waste of your vote to support or think that either the Libertarian or Green (Nader) parties represent anything other than kooky fringe groups. They will never accomplish anything because they don't represent more than a few percent of the population that is also out to lunch.

I can even find quite a number of good things in Bill "BlowJob" Clinton's presidency, and I'm a clear cut Republican. Anyone who has to dismiss Reagan's accomplishments is not in touch with reality. The Soviet Union was brought down by trying to match Reagan's intentional military buildup, and their economy could not sustain it.

Anyway, it's not worth discussing details with someone so uneducated. Go eat some organic sprouts, and let the rest of us run the country.

XXXXX Exactly what are you trying to say? Don't hold back either tell us how you really feel.

[code65536]

The fact that you are a libertarian tells me that you are an idealist, one that wouldn't be happy with any candidate.

And I'm damn proud to be one. At least someone still remember the principles upon which this nation was founded. And if believing in principles makes me an 'idealist," then so be it. I'm proud to be one.

Oh, and for the record, if you carefully examine the history of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was careful to leave out any references to God in the document because, while he was religious, he felt strongly about the need to separate church and state and let people practice what they want and believe what they want without the pressure of having government support one set or views or another. The references to God in the Declaration were not Jefferson's words, but were actually the doing of a member of the Continental Congress who felt that it would be politically correct to insert those words. If only Jefferson can be here to see what Bush and Ashcroft have done to his beloved country--he'd be rolling over in his grave right now!!

It is a total waste of your vote to support or think that either the Libertarian or Green (Nader) parties represent anything other than kooky fringe groups. They will never accomplish anything because they don't represent more than a few percent of the population that is also out to lunch.

Didn't I just say that the Libertarian Party leans too far towards anarchy for my tastes? Yes, they are a bunch of kooky fringe groups (since you like name-calling so much)--at least the Libertarian Party is--which is why although I label myself libertarian, I'd never vote for the LP. Actually take some time and read my post before bashing. And when did I say that I liked Nader? He wants to get rid of free trade, for goodness sakes!

I can even find quite a number of good things in Bill "BlowJob" Clinton's presidency

Nice name-calling. If you resort to that, should I start saying George W. "CronyCapitalism" Bush? Don't get me started on Bush's economic policy; I'm an econ major--a firm believer of the wonders of capitalism--and I can tell you that what Bush advocates is such a sick bastardization of "capitalism" (it's no wonder so many people are becoming so anti-capitalist these days, with the bad name that Bush gives to something wonderful like *real* free markets). And quite frankly, I think that while Clinton's indiscretions were a huge embarrassment to the country, the only people it really hurt were him and the people around him. Bush's crony capitalism hurt many more people, and so did his little crusade (which, incidentally, was condemned by religious figures like the Pope) in Iraq.

I'm a clear cut Republican.

Yes, we can tell.

The Soviet Union was brought down by trying to match Reagan's intentional military buildup, and their economy could not sustain it.

I don't believe that. The USSR was, as I said, already corrupt. The most Reagan did was accelerate the inevitable. But of course, unless either of us could travel back in time, change history, and watch an alternate timeline unfold, we'd never know for sure, so I'll just agree to disagree.

Anyway, it's not worth discussing details with someone so uneducated. Go eat some organic sprouts, and let the rest of us run the country.

There you go with the name-calling again. Uneducated? Well, if you want to stoop that low, I've studied political science and economics. I'm probably more educated than our current President who probably got drunk every weekend and slept through half his classes. And I hate organic sprouts, for your information. Since when did it become that everyone who is not a Republican is a tree-hugging vegan with long, unkept hair? You certainly seem to think of me as such. Please, where did you ever get such an impression?

For the record, I do *not* have long hair, I *do* shower every day, I have never done any illegal substance, and I groan every time the far-left liberals at my college hold a demonstration, and I groan every time the far-right organizations at my college publish documents bashing the leftist demonstration that was just held. I'm a moderate, really. So moderate that my libertarian friends accuse me of not being a true libertarian (heck, I don't want anarchy), my Democrat friends accuse me of being a closet Republican, and my Republican friends (who happen to be slowly pulling away from the party, thanks to Bush) call me a Democrat. I guess you're right; I am not happy with any of the political parties. But at least I can spot one very rotten candidate (Bush) when I see one (now, if it was someone who had *real* principles like McCain of the Republicans or Clark of the Dems, *that* would be someone I'd vote for)

[JamieW]

XXXXX,

For you information this country was founded by a group of Christians which recognized the danger of founding the country on God. Let's not revise history just because it suits your purposes.

[XXXXX]

And if believing in principles makes me an 'idealist," then so be it. I'm proud to be one.

The same is true with Hitler and his Nazi's and skinheads here in America. That doesn't make idiots like you any less irrelevant to the future of this great country.

The references to God in the Declaration were not Jefferson's words, but were actually the doing of a member of the Continental Congress who felt that it would be politically correct to insert those words. If only Jefferson can be here to see what Bush and Ashcroft have done to his beloved country--he'd be rolling over in his grave right now!!

That is your spoonfed opinion, and your comments about Bush & Ashcroft, while neglecting worse criticism of Clinton & Janet "Waco/Ruby Ridge" Reno tells me quite clearly that you are nothing but another mutant Democrat that is a petty and bitter "died in the wool liberal."

For your information, the Declaration of Independence was a declaration....of our independence from tyrannical Britain. You might want to check back on your high school civics books to realize that America is run by the Constitution, and all that has ensued since then.

I have it on good authority that Jefferson was a devoutly religious man, and did not openly or formally object to the USA being founded on the foundation of believing in God. I think the words are "In God We Trust." You and the ACLU can try to remove as many vestiges of worshiping a higher power as you wish, but you will fail.

The people are speaking in the democratic manner that the founding fathers (of which Jefferson was only one), intended by electing the leaders that represent them through history. Libertarians are jokes, and pariahs who cannot fit into society, so they snipe from the fringes of the peanut gallery.

Your additional selected comments that were 100% made against Bush, and not against any of the policies or liberal agenda of Clinton, and your unilateral objection to my intentionnally provocative name calling of Libertarians and Clinton again confirms that you are simply using your Libertarian blanket to bash our current president, who to my great joy will be re-elected.

Bush has been a fabulous president. He faced the 9/11 Terrorism disaster, and began an appopropriate pre-emptive policy of taking the war that radical Islamist declared years earlier, to their home turf. Like Reagan, he has the balls to stand up with the use of force to an enemy that only understands force.

Bush led tax cuts have resulted in eradicating the recession he obviously inherited from Clinton, and have led to the most agressive economic recovery following a recession in US history. He has restored morality to the White House after a nation of parents had to explain to their 5 year old children what a blow job was...and why it is a felony to lie under oath that led to Clinton's appropriate impeachment.

Following 9/11, Bush has put America's interest first, and after making an attempt to appeal to Euro-Liberals at the nearly worthless United Nations, many of whom are corruptly receiving kickbacks and bribes from the likes of Sadaam Hussein. The joke is how many of them were simultaneously caught with their money grubbing hands in the Iraqi cookie jar.

You despise Bush/Ashcroft for necessarily eroding some of our rights as a way to protect the country from another 9/11, which is short sided and stupid. If the terrorist war is resolved, the rights can be reinstated by a follow up vote expressing the will of the people. Despite all of the dumbass liberal propaganda, for me personally, not one single thing has changed in how I live my life as a result of the Patriot Act, except a long line going through airport security. These Islamic Terrorists are promising openly on their websites to kill 3-5 million Americans this summer. You think the Patriot Act is offensive? Just you wait until after the next major terrorist attack. You might as well just move to Canada now.

I could also vote for McCain, but never General Clark who's angry countenance looks like he still needs to blow up a few more countries. However, McCain did not do what was required to win his party's nomination....so we are back to dealing with reality, rather than living in your Wizard of Oz fantasyland.

[XXXXX]

XXXXX,

For you information this country was founded by a group of Christians which recognized the danger of founding the country on God. Let's not revise history just because it suits your purposes.

Not quite. They recognized the natural power of founding the country on the belief and trust in God, but wanted to make sure there was religious freedom for all faiths that could not be restricted by the government. Here I'll give you a Civic's 101 lesson. Pay attention, you might learn something. Here is the source. Note all of the rest of the crap, and your own boneheaded interpretations that you have added.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Jefferson elucidated on his views 10 years after the constitution was ratified in an informal reply to the Danbury, CT Baptist Association, which you can read about here. This hardly makes the supposed clear cut case that atheistic ACLU liberals would have everyone believe. Read his letter carefully, and take it in the context with which it was presented, including 10 years later, to a private group of Baptists. Note the section that was removed in his final draft.

Ratifying the constitution was done by the entire group of founding fathers, and Jefferson did not dictate his personal feelings to prevail on the majority, any more than John McCain facing the same dilemna. The majority rules. Bush won, and Gore lost because the law says we elect our president by electoral college majorities. Get used to it.

[JamieW]

Well now, hold up there, Bubba.

I'm not even going to get into my views here, as they are not up for your personal inspection, you pompous ass. But let's address what you DID say instead of making hypocritical assumptions.

Ashcroft is an ass. The only way that man would read the Bill of Rights is if you folded it up real nice and put it in a bible. To counter your assumption, it is entirely probable that he was not discussing Clinton/Reno because they are not currently in office. Here's a news flash for you, Bush/Ashcroft are. Hmm...I wonder if this might make them topical.

You may want to advance beyond high school and research. Even the SCOTUS has said you cannot interpret the Constitution without the Declaration of Independence making it a highly relevant document to current Constitutional discussion.

Unless your "good authority" is a seance in which Jefferson himself floated above the table and you could see through him, your "good authority" is worthless without endorsement. That "In God We Trust" is on our money does not force a choice for use or require active participation in the wording or belief system and is therefore a pretty useless point.

Rather than discuss the belief, you'll just attack the people, right? Well how about you get off of your arrogant horse and recognize that some people...wait for it, you may want to sit down...have DIFFERENT beliefs than you? I know! The horror of it! Perhaps you would be slightly efficient at getting people to respect your views if you offered even the slightest hint of respect of other's views. They are not pariahs, nor are the greens. And Jesus, boy. Learn to use "pariah" correctly. You don't need to add "who cannot fit into society." You just used the word "pariah." They, like greens and other third partiers, may actually be independent thinkers who do not subscribe to a single party's platform. And you, who are clearly an automated republican, have the audacity to accuse someone else of having spoonfed beliefs when that is what your entire belief system is comprised of? I don't know how you people function, let alone create posts that aren't pre-approved by the GOP.

Bush has not been a fabulous president. Even if he has one failing, it is in communicating the people. Have you seen his approval ratings? Have you? This is not indicative of a successful President. And I love how Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, but who did the first Bush inherit it from? Clinton as well? Accusing someone of just bashing Bush, and then you have the same blinders when it comes to Clinton and the previous Bush.

Patriot Act doesn't affect you? It affects you in the very existence. Just like a repeal of voting wouldn't affect you until you voted. The mere existence of the Patriot Act is an affront to a free democracy. But you will happily take the rights you are permitted to have by the men in charge. Go ahead and take it, you sheep. If you don't think the Patriot Act has affected you, you don't know anything about it.

In short, I suggest you take your pompous attitude, your inability to respond with points, your robotic attack on anything that doesn't agree with you and convert it into your native tongue of republican sheep so at least it takes up less space on the forum. Instead of typing words, I suggest you use "baah" and save everyone from your worthless, venom filled, point barren drivel.

[Spazmogen]

Heh....like Canada is a place worth moving to..

At least we never have to go to the Supreme Court to determine who's going to lead our country...into the abyss.

Democracy: we always get the government we deserve.

George W Bush is what America got...and the world gasped in horror. The only person worse would have been Dan Quayle.

Hey! If you smoke POT, looks like Canada is actually going to decriminalize it. IE: You'll get a small fine when caught, not a criminal record. Sure beats the 3 strikes and you're out law.

There's also several American Service men who fled to Canada instead of fighting in Iraq. They're trying to claim refugee status. It looks like they'll get it too.

[JamieW]

What the hell? You idiot. That does nothing to counter what I said.

[code65536]

necessarily eroding some of our rights as a way to protect the country

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

I won't respond to the rest of your post because JamieW already did a fine job of responding to it.

[XXXXX]

Well now, hold up there, Bubba.

Sorry to disappoint, but my name is not Bubba, Gay-John.

I'm not even going to get into my views here,

Yes you are. You just proceeded to contradict yourself before you even started.

as they are not up for your personal inspection,

Yes they are. Just watch me inspect them.

you pompous ass. But let's address what you DID say instead of making hypocritical assumptions.

It would have been more eloquent, had you said making hypocritical assumptions from within your pompous ass, which I am now vomitting back to you.

Ashcroft is an ass. The only way that man would read the Bill of Rights is if you folded it up real nice and put it in a bible.

Now there is a muture and factual statement if I ever heard one. Ashcroft is a decent and ethical man who is following instructions, and doing his best to protect the nation from another 9/11. Hopefully the next attack will be on your house.

To counter your assumption, it is entirely probable that he was not discussing Clinton/Reno because they are not currently in office. Here's a news flash for you, Bush/Ashcroft are. Hmm...I wonder if this might make them topical.

Fat chance. You dimestore thinly veiled liberals are coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches blinded by the supreme light of Bush. There are no true democratic liberals who can berate any aspect of Clinton's many failings. It is not an accident, nor a matter of probability that he failed to mention the horrible police state abuses of Clinton. Nothing to date that Bush/Ashcroft has directly authorized remotely compares to the Clinton/Reno atrocities such as Waco and Ruby Ridge.

You may want to advance beyond high school and research.

I have. I even gave you a direct quote of the First Ammendment, and further details of the comments Jefferson made on the subject 10 years later.

Even the SCOTUS has said you cannot interpret the Constitution without the Declaration of Independence making it a highly relevant document to current Constitutional discussion.

I never said the DofI was not a relevant document. I said that laws are made as determined by the U.S. Constitution. I know this is a difficult concept, which is why I had hoped you could follow the Civics 101 lessons. Alas, I failed to properly instruct you.

Unless your "good authority" is a seance in which Jefferson himself floated above the table and you could see through him, your "good authority" is worthless without endorsement. That "In God We Trust" is on our money does not force a choice for use or require active participation in the wording or belief system and is therefore a pretty useless point.

Ignoring your spiritual fantasies, since everyone knows that Astrology is where the money is....The "In God We Trust" forces everyone throughout the world to confront the fact that the USA Trusts in God, every time they touch it. I'm sure the Atheist ACLU liberals cringe with every dollar they stuff into their greedy coffers.

Rather than discuss the belief, you'll just attack the people, right?

Wrong. I can do either if the shoe fits.

Well how about you get off of your arrogant horse

I actually do have a horse, but his name is Buster. A palomino, and quite handsome.

and recognize that some people...wait for it, you may want to sit down...have DIFFERENT beliefs than you?

I recognize that others have different beliefs, however wrong they may be.

I know! The horror of it! Perhaps you would be slightly efficient at getting people to respect your views if you offered even the slightest hint of respect of other's views.

Democratic liberals such as yourself are much too angry at having Clinton lost both houses of congress to the Republicans, and his lackey, Gore losing to Bush. They are incapable of respecting anyone other than fellow screeching liberals.

They are not pariahs, nor are the greens.

Yes they are. However you want to measure it....they are pariahs.

And Jesus, boy. Learn to use "pariah" correctly. You don't need to add "who cannot fit into society." You just used the word "pariah."

I enjoyed the effect of being repetitious...as you just did in your feeble attempt in that last quote.

They, like greens and other third partiers, may actually be independent thinkers who do not subscribe to a single party's platform.

Everyone is an independent thinker to a degree. Hitler was independent. Stalin was independent. Karl Marx was independent. Charles Manson was independent. James Jones was independent. Ralph Nader is independent. I'm so happy now that we have established the benefit of independent thinking.

And you, who are clearly an automated republican, have the audacity to accuse someone else of having spoonfed beliefs when that is what your entire belief system is comprised of? I don't know how you people function, let alone create posts that aren't pre-approved by the GOP

Yes, I do have the audicity and tenacity to make these accusations. It would take too long to list my entire set of beliefs, nor would you be able to sleep tonight if you had to read them all. We all function quite nicely, thank you. Especially since we have a majority in the House, Senate, Presidency, and will likely be able to appoint another couple of Supreme Court Justices during the next four years. LOL!

Bush has not been a fabulous president.

Yes he has been a fabulous president, which is why he will be re-elected, despite all of your whining protestations.

Even if he has one failing, it is in communicating the people. Have you seen his approval ratings?

He is communicating with us just fine....only you just see the one sided liberal news media's side of the coverage. Try expanding your horizons. Start by watching Fox News which now has eclipsed the ratings of all Network news departments, and has higher ratings than CNN & MSNBC combined! Power to the People!

Have you?

Yes. Do you always have this incessant need to frivolously repeat yourself? Unlike Clinton, this president doesn't govern based on the the poll blowing in the wind. We will see how his polls end up as the Iraq war is winding down nicely, and the economy continues to wind up nicely. I don't suppose you are referring to his Poll ratings following 9/11? Nah, I didn't think you could bear to think about those ratings.

This is not indicative of a successful President.

Make up your mind. Either you want me to pay attention to the polls, or you don't. With your confusing flip-flopping, is your last name Kerry?

And I love how Bush inherited a recession from Clinton,

It's true. Check the facts, and the time period of how a recession is defined....dating back into Clinton's term. I'm glad you love it though, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

but who did the first Bush inherit it from?

I give up. Is this "Twenty Questions?"

Clinton as well?

Now I'm worried about you, since you are so filled with Bush hatred that you can't remember the proper order of the presidents.

Accusing someone of just bashing Bush, and then you have the same blinders when it comes to Clinton and the previous Bush.

No, I could find things to praise about Clinton, or any president. Likewise, I can find things to criticize about any president. Liberals are not able to do the same.

Patriot Act doesn't affect you?

Nope. I hate having to repeat myself, as I already said that. My life is EXACTLY the same, except at the airport.

It affects you in the very existence. Just like a repeal of voting wouldn't affect you until you voted. The mere existence of the Patriot Act is an affront to a free democracy.

I love the Patriot Act. I think it is going a long way to protect us from another 9/11, which you apparently prefer. Like I said earlier, I'm hoping the next attack is on your house. It would be just irony.

But you will happily take the rights you are permitted to have by the men in charge. Go ahead and take it, you sheep.

WTF? Did that make sense to anyone?

If you don't think the Patriot Act has affected you, you don't know anything about it.

Unlike your spoonfed liberal armchair analysis, I have actually taken the time to read the entire Patriot Act. I doubt you have the intellectual prowess to read it, but here is the link. Which sections would you like to discuss in it?

In short, I suggest you take your pompous attitude, your inability to respond with points, your robotic attack on anything that doesn't agree with you and convert it into your native tongue of republican sheep so at least it takes up less space on the forum.

That at least had a modicum of humor in it....but would have been more politically correct had you used the "native tongue of republican elephant..." I enjoy taking up this blessed space on the forum, apparently as you do also.

Instead of typing words, I suggest you use "baah" and save everyone from your worthless, venom filled, point barren drivel.

That is again just more reiterated drivel from your last quote. Try to be more concise, won't you?

[XXXXX]

Heh....like Canada is a place worth moving to..

At least we never have to go to the Supreme Court to determine who's going to lead our country...into the abyss.

That's why we are the great country we are, and you are....well.....I hate to make fun of the handicapped buffoons of the world.

Democracy: we always get the government we deserve.

True.

George W Bush is what America got...and the world gasped in horror. The only person worse would have been Dan Quayle.

Bush didn't run for the World President....and we know that at least you gasped in horror. With your new Avatar, I'm sure your opinion is very highly respected. Granted about Quayle being a disaster.

Hey! If you smoke POT, looks like Canada is actually going to decriminalize it. IE: You'll get a small fine when caught, not a criminal record. Sure beats the 3 strikes and you're out law.

Good for you. Now you can adopt Marajuana as your National Flower, and have a reason for taking over the position of being the world's laughing stock from Poland.

There's also several American Service men who fled to Canada instead of fighting in Iraq. They're trying to claim refugee status. It looks like they'll get it too.

It would figure that such an issue would be a matter of national pride for a nation of such bumbling idiots....but we shall see what happens on this issue.