The above comments are for the most part well thought-out, reasonable, conversational in tone, and not the typical /. idiocy from both sides of an argument. I really enjoyed reading them even if I didn't agree with all of them. Thanks!

I'm a director of a software development company and when we need someone we usually start with a staffing company like Tech Sys or Pinnacle (pinnacle1.com) to find us candidates. Often we prefer contractors who are willing to be hired down the line so we don't lose a good employee, but can let them go if it's not a good fit. You can also test drive the company before coming on full-time. Decide if you're willing to travel, relocate, etc before accepting a contract as both are often required depending on where you live. Also, being willing to travel will increase your chances of finding something, but think about the financial aspects of that and make sure the contract is for enough money to make it worth it if travel costs aren't included in the contract. Let both the staffing company and the employer know you're willing to be hired as a full-time employee and that's the only type of work you're looking for. This is important as this often dictates the terms between the two companies and a full-time position most likely isn't possible without a cooling off period, unless the contract states it. A cooling off period basically means after your contract ends you cannot be hired by the employer for 3-6 months. You can work with multiple staffing companies to increase your chances of finding a good job.

Your post reminds me of that movie Coming to America... McDowell's and their Golden Arcs.

I've always believed this. It's like saying the strong economic times of the "Roaring 20s" were a result of Calvin Coolidge's policies, when in reality it was because we suddenly had manufacturing prowess and WWI gave us a huge economic boost. However, by 1929 we were in our worst economic downturn. Sound familiar?

Also, Clinton's supposed surplus was nothing of the kind but rather a robbing of social security to boost government revenue. http://tinyurl.com/5u7zvo

Small type-o: DEMOCRATS: Let's pretend to care and cut some spending that equates to less that 1% of overall spending. As long as the spending doesn't affect my special interests. And raise taxes on the rich disproportionately to anything anyone else is paying. God forbid someone ELSE has to pay anything. REPUBLICANS: Let's shout louder about cutting MORE spending, but in reality make things worse. As long as the spending doesn't affect my special interests. Of course, leave taxes as is (or LOWER them). TEA PARTY (with tears in their eyes): The debit is killing us, our children. Burn it all! P.S. I haven't heard one tea-partier speak to saving their own special interests in lieu of cutting spending. Just the opposite. They seem far too willing to make take a hatchet to the whole thing and with some short-sighted proposals that defy logic. Disclaimer: I voted for the tea party candidate in my state. And write him when I think he's being a bone head.

I'd love for the middle class to pay for it. I'd love for the lower class to pay for it too. I'd love for the upper class to pay for more of it.
The fact of the matter is nearly half of Americans who are whining about the rich not paying their fair share, pay no federal income tax. Considering those are the same people who demand free health care, free school lunches, for the government to pay them not to work, I'm not so sure it's the wealthiest Americans who need to pay their "fair share". As soon as the number of Americans paying something that resembles taxes - even if it's just $100/year - gets closer to 20%, I'll listen to you bitch about the how the Rich aren't paying their fair share.

P.S. I'm middle class.

One basic flaw in teaching that the U.S. is a democracy is the fact that we're actually a Republic. Popular elections don't vote in our president, the electoral college does. The electoral college is real people, not automatons, who could (depending on state law) decide to take the popular vote into account when making their decision - or decide the voting public are ignoramuses and vote their own way. In some states, it's possible to win only part of the electoral votes. Regardless of the outcome of this suit, for better or for worse, President George W Bush was our legally elected president and everything he did as President stands.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what have you actively done to battle these grievances besides post to the internet? The founding fathers spent a decade appealing to the government, actively protesting, demanding representation, asking for reprieves and trying to negotiating a peaceful solution. Many of our founding fathers actually wanted to stay a part of the British Empire but with more say in how their colonies were run. In the end, that's what it was about - the people having a say in how their country is ran. In the country they formed, we have a means of fighting back against those in power. It's called elections. You're welcome to back and politically support anyone who will address the issues that most concern you. The quote above is talking about revolution, but that's what I love, revolution in this country can be bloodless.

That journalist - a very respected one in both camps, btw - was asked his opinion and gave the hosts - a political talk-show - several opportunities to retract the invitation.

Can someone point out which revisions are the Palin fans'? I went back a day comparing changes between contributors. I only see legitimate updates and one who - based on his other contributions - I wouldn't consider a fan. I would love to see examples. Except for a few scattering blogs and /., I haven't seen any major news outlets pick this up which I would've expected.