They left with Clinton.

I wish he could run for prez again, I think he would be elected unanimously.

Not if zombie Reagan has anything to say about it :)

Implants is a possibility. Cancer... I don't know about that one.Nature of any sweetener. Both sugar and aspartame do it.

chew, sorry, but I always mix them up ...

my dad got diabetes as an adult and has to take insulin ... (is this something weird?)

he also said that there was a study where no antidepresant actually worked ... :-\

his book is a "TV only offer" of "29.95" ... so I think that he's full of "it"

Many type 2 need insulin, but usually not from the begining of it. But all type 1 will need insulin

Hell yeah, I would vote for him even if he is a Republican. Only problem is he would be assinated by some dipshit in the first year. "I ain't havin no culured feller as presidant!"

Lol ya... We need comedian as a president... The country would be more fun... John Stewart for pres!

Jon Stewart or Powell would make a great race ... I don't doubt it either ...

if Jon Stewart is elected, I am sure everyone will like us :P (no muslim jokes ;))

I live in NYC, I want to go to a taping or whatever they have of the Daily Show and suggest the idea ;)

what do you guys think? Comedy Party all the way :P

If only Bill Hicks were still alive... How about Dennis Leary? :D

Go Arnold!!!

Powell or McClain
hmm, both republicans - waiting in line ?

poor dems, retread Gore or Kerry ? or Mrs. Clinton ?
not gonna be a dem White House any time soon

McCain is a good guy. I'd probably vote for him. But now way the RNC is going to push him.


I'd got for Jon. At least the state of the union addresses would be interesting "State of the Union with Jon Stewert" heheh

I'm just going to write myself in for this election. **** em. I can do a better job.

I view it this way...if your going to trade you should trade up. I do not see Kerry making any policy changes at all. I personally think that the Bush Administrations call to topple the BA'ATH/Nazi party in Iraq was right.

Fewer people die on a daily bases now that sanctions have ended and the BA'ATH Party is not systematically murdering and starving large portions of the population. Some seem to forget the mass graves we found through out Iraq. The last estimate I read said almost a million Iraqis died at the hands of the BA'ATHISTS. It seems to me we only care about genocides when they are happing in countries where the majority of the population is white. Ugh...Sudan. What ever happened to "Never Again" :shrug:

I am sure some still say that it was an invasion and an occupation but I was there and rather than just tell you it was liberation and that WE WERE greeted as liberators. Let me show you what I saw going into Basra and Al Mehdian....BTW I was in the same unit as Cpl Abdul Henderson the Marine of FAHRENHEIT 911 fame....I wonder why he didn’t show Michele Moore any of these pictures...Henderson took a few of these
http://home.socal.rr.com/lotharspub/...in-Al-Medi.jpg
http://home.socal.rr.com/lotharspub/DSCF0004.jpg
http://home.socal.rr.com/lotharspub/IMG06.jpg
http://home.socal.rr.com/lotharspub/174-Grandson.jpg
http://home.socal.rr.com/lotharspub/Jeff's-Pics-137.jpg

Here is my bottom line as a liberal and someone who donates to Amnesty International...President Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least he is standing up for the fundamental principle of our country...freedom. Afghanistan just had elections and Iraq will have them soon.

Bullshit. Absolute rubbish. That guy has NO credibilty now, in my eyes.' Some antidepressants, however, may enhance the risk of suicide in some people for a short period of time after going on.

If Bush actually followed his "principles" then there'd be no problem. However, lying to the people and attacking a country that had little involvement in the "reason" war was had (9/11, no WMD's to date either [I would have had little issue if it was for Saddam being a brutal dictator, which is undeniable, but making up reasons for going to war AFTER going to war? No.]) and NOT giving attorneys to terrorists and taking away personal freedoms and banning gay marriage [who is he? Your moral leader?] is NOT the way of "America" (as it should be, not as it is). Sure, they've got elections, but have you freedoms that you should (definitely) have?

I don't know, my wife's tried a few, and she's not any better :p

Ah yes I forgot that as well. Some people don't respond to some antidepressants.

Look I am a life long democrat and a social liberal. I most certainly do not agree with his social policies or the patriot act.

However, taking down Saddam and the BA'ATHIST/Nazis was not a bad action. To me it is irrelevant that he did not have WMD. Saddam certainly was eluding to having them and the reasonable man assumption at the time was that he had them. It is no leap to assume if he had them that he would have used them...ask the Kurds. They shot at Coalition Aircraft in the no fly zone for almost 10 years. That provocation in and of itself was justification for war.

Look at the pictures and ask yourself if they deserve the same freedoms, you and I enjoy. Then ask yourself if you would be willing to fight and possibly die to secure their freedom. Under what conditions are you justified in removing a government that suppresses it own people.

As far as my freedoms in the US are concerned...our court system (third branch of government) is ruling on the constitutional issues regarding the patriot act specifically Habeas Corpus. I still have my vote and soon the Iraqis will get theirs.

AA is a teener w/o perspective I suspect

AA, you old enough to vote ?
served in the military ?
which countries have you lived in ? (not counties eh)
speak any foreign languages ?

yet you have the freedom to babble on here
who on earth would be concerned about loosing credibility with you ?
pipe down

ah, a Canadian ?
even more revealing, you're not even paying for this show - just a critic

Like I said, war for freedom, ok. War for oil, fame, and things that do not exist? No.

Not old enough to vote. Haven't served in the military. Just Canada. Not well. Not sure (credibility), but I can back my comments up with fact. He can sell his books if he wants... Nothing says that a salesman has to be honest, but I'm going to try to get the truth out, if anyone will listen. Yeah I can babble on here, which is one of the things that I'm glad hasn't been taken away (yet). Just a critic, like always. I can't do anything to change the system, so I guess I"ll just be content with babbling. ;) My opinions seem to be very often supported in my region, and I'm in Alberta (Texas of Canada.) I notice a stark contrast when watching Americans discuss politics with anyone else, so I don't think I'm the only one. I don't agree with what my government does, but what they do is not much, so I have less to complain about.

You’re probably right Bill. I remember the days when I could bask in pure idealism…then I got to see the World beyond North America.

I like the final quote :)

Ok AA the War for Oil is a fallacious argument and doesn’t stand the test of Economics 101. If we wanted the oil, it would have been cheaper to just get UN sanctions lifted and trade Saddam for it. The days of war for economic gain are long gone. Military operations are far too expensive.

War for fame...come on :drool:

Saddam played games with the UN for years over the WMD inspections. He had as much to do with us believing he had the weapons, as did the intelligence assumptions.

AA
truly the US has the best con game in the world

we print up colored paper and people give us oil for it
period
'war for oil' is propaganda, you got suckered

For the country, definitely.

I don't see the problem with "war for fame" as he will be (in)famous for this for a long time. Terrorism and this war are the number one issues in the US right now. How would the election stack up with a huge deficit and nothing else in the way? I'm not sure on this point but I believe that Bush would be a lot worse (note that I did not mention the economy, although his foreign relations don't seem to be helping.)

I worded it incorrectly, I should have said, "war for oil money." I know that more oil is not a result of this, although a stabler supply may come in the long run. I know that Bush and a lot of his administration are invested in oil companies, and I also know that oil prices have, as a result of instability in the middle east, a shut down Iraq, and an oil giant shutting down (last one irrelevant to the war) gone to the highest point they have ever been, and I believe that Bush and/or some of his major supporters are making hundreds of thousands/millions/billions.

The error in your statement is hidden within your statement itself... can you find it?