Welcome to last week.

Yeah, because this is JUST the kind of story one would use to discredit the Obama administration. Idiot.

First of all, "dirty" comes from the accounts of people who have been in the capitol building and described it as such. Second, I don't think the Democrat party has that kinda money but you can bet unions do and that together they could and are doing this. Third, the fact that people are coming in from out of state is apparent. I never said people weren't coming from around the state but to say that there aren't people coming from out of state is patently false and has been widely reported.

"Trying to silence this one man isn't going to accomplish anything except to perhaps reinforce to the people how much he resembles other dictators and fascists leaders."
Then I assume you'd condemn this: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2011/03/waiting-for-joe-and-bill.html
And you have to condemn Biden for it to be fair. Just like every Republican is responsible for what just one Republican does.

"Smattering of liberals"

D00d! How new are you?

"emanding copies of e-mails and other documents is the latest technique used politically to silence critics"

Oh and hiring people to fly to another state to sit in the capitol building, yell about stuff many know nothing about (because they were hired), and smell up the place by refusing to leave long enough to bathe isn't another "latest tactic?" And this professor titles his post "Who’s Really Behind Recent Republican Legislation in Wisconsin and Elsewhere?" So it's okay for him to post "with no effort to obscure the political motivations" and ask who's behind what but it's somehow a anathema to be asked the same question. This is hypocrisy. You'd think being a professor...you know what, tell me you're a professor and you start at idiot. The rest of the conversation I'm thinking to myself, "Will this guy be able to convince me his doctorate is anything more than a piece of paper?"

Yes, yes we have become a bunch of pussies. Now there's this new-fangled idea called "hate speech." It's really just speech a given group thinks is offensive or directed at them. ie protected speech or free speech. But having it "free" is a problem when you don't like it. But the problem with "hate speech" is that if "faggot" is hate speech then so is "homophobe." Both are names hurled around at will. But the truth is, only one will ever really be called "hate speech."

Ummm.....no one said that. But I can tell you at a private school they'd tell the parents their kid isn't welcomed. After shelling out $7-10k for Jr. to go there they'd buck up and hold him more accountable.

"If you are sending your children to public school that is tantamount to child abuse." - Neal Boortz. They certainly aren't learning any principles that our country stands for. But hey, say its for their own protection, throw the word "Columbine" out there and parents won't care.

I just can't think of "action" and "Zuckerberg" together.

"willing to divulge highly personal information to a complete stranger."

I do this twice a month. It's called seeing a therapist. :p

They might have wished so in the beginning but Apple has been so much more popular than Microsoft in the past 5 years I think they're quite content with their place in the market. The iPod rules that market. The iPhone is the hippest. The iPad owns the tablet market. And these devices have bolstered their Mac business. Apple is a microbrew full of flavor and an all around better experience than the PC, which is more like Bud Light.

Holding your bladder can also be bad for you. Women, for instance, can have serious issues holding they're bladder too long. OTOH, one life decision will be made for you: going to the hospital and picking up some antibiotics.

So why is Anonymous the good guys for hacking banks and the government is the bad guys for hacking...well the bad guys!?

I don't think it's a matter of discrediting an entire field. Climate change research is needed whether you believe man is the causation or not. We have to be prepared either way. It does bring into question credibility, objectivity, and ethics. The question is more knowing the kind of people involved and is the report trustworthy. I'm far more concerned that each and every country represented in the study seems to have conveniently cleared their researchers but each also seemed to bring up serious issues with ethics. It's like saying, "Sure this guy lies about a lot of things but I see no evidence he lied about this." Of course, my contention is getting the U.N. involved in any study is a waste of time anyway. They are by nature corrupt and I would always wonder, and do, how much it had to do with money.

I didn't say it was, just that it could be. It could be that Russian elitists tend to view the world in an almost opposite view of the Western world. Or it could just be an alternate story.

Everything doesn't have to be an allegory but it could.