People still defend President Cheney.

Umm, actually in 2008, we had a choice between him, and a Republican ticket that had on competent if tempermental hawk of the old school, and a VP candidate who was woefully incompetent.

In 2012 we saw a knock down dragout, return to the 1800's seething hatefest in the Republican primaries, with one unelectable front runner after another, until we got a presidential candidate who was a human version fo Scrooge McDuck, and a sort of Libertarian. Who then had to run on values that were not there own, not unlike when Bob Dole had to drop his personal values to run in the 1990's.

The reason it worked twice is that the Republican party has fielded such godawful candidates. This is because in similar manner to the Democrats in the 1970's, the party is being torn by dissenting members who in the modern day Republican party are extremely right wing, extremely idealistic, and they will not negotiate. They have been instrumental in purging the party of moderates, in effect, eating their own. Right now, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are blocking the House Republicans from communicating with the Republicans in the Senate , because they might compromise on something.

The rest of the country watches.

Where exactly are these liberals?

Congratulations, you are well on the way to having excuses for all your failures. I heard a feoolw blame a traffic jam on Obama the other day. Welcome to his subgroup. You win 1 internet, and 1 Fox news

1. An electric car is apostacy in some regions of the US.

2. Republicans hate regulations. Except when they love them.

One pundit called him the "Magic Negro"

It ended up that we have him compared to the fascist Group that invokes Godwin, as well as declaring him socialist, and communist. He is called a Muslim, despite his taking part in activities forbidden to people of that faith.

Magic indeed!

Antibiotics are used in many farm animals for two reasons. The first is that they gain weight and are ready for market more quickly. The second is that they can be kept in a less clean environment. Both mean less cost and better profits. So far, so good - although I am not accepting of keeping animals under filthy unsanitary conditions

The bad part is that as an animal takes antibiotics, the antibiotic kills a large precentage of germs, but a few survive. In most cases, there ar etoo few left fo do much harm. But a lifelong administration of antibiotic among large groups means that of those .1 percent of germs that survived, eventually become the dominant type of bacteria, and the once effective antibiotic is innefective. There is a fair chance that this resistant bacteria will make its way into the human population. Yes, cooking th emeat will probably kill the bacteria, but we are constantly shown that this doesn't always happen, and cross contamination is an always present problem

Did you ever figure that was an adequate excuse?

Not in what you say isn't the truth, because any software that hasn't been shaken down is usually pretty bad, but using the "first time" as an actual reason for insecure software? Completely unacceptable. If you worked for me with that attitude, you might end up in the mail department where you could have an easier job.

I support the right to own guns, but I say this respectfully, and would hope it might make a point. This business of people saying Blah blah kills people, so we should ban blah blah.

It makes a person look exceptionally stupid, and incapable of making an intelligent argument. If you were handed a baseball bat and a rifle with which to defend yourself, which would you choose? Yes, you could defend yourself with a baseball bat, but against a gun? Now if you were told to pick something with which to play baseball game, you would hardly ever pick the rifle, unless you are planning on reorganizing the team.

And so far, I've heard comparisons of:

bats, fists, people, rocks, scissors, knives, forks, and others that I've forgotten.

But the problem with the comparisons that makes them so silly is that these other devices are not designed to impart shock to something. One might make an argument that target shooting is an alternative purpose for guns, (one of my favorite activities) but it is in practice, preparation for using the weapon to kill something. As I said before, I support gun ownership. But who exactly is suggesting that guns be banned? There are some people, yes, but they are as much a fringe as the person I saw yesterday at a Wal-Mart that actually bragged about wanting to shoot someone while riding his motorcycle. Didn't make much sense, but he was obviously looking to cap someone. Most people just want some responsibility along with the right to own.

You do realize that you just made a strawman, don't you?

Considering the similie you just made, I think you just made the 29 percent.

The people they were eating?

A new Starbucks.

That'll teach those bastard Mayans for being wrong about the calander! Almost put the History channel out of business.

Glad it's amusing to you. I'll give that propaganda piece as much attention as I would a creationist piece telling us how humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and the earth was created in 4004 B.C.E. You may not like that, you might find it amusing, but it simply isn't science. Some time in th edark past, I asked for science that would refute the concept of CO2 atmospheric warming, or at least show how it was mitigated. Your Youtube video is none of that.

To put it in a similar vein, you are acting like a person who claims that oil is abiotically created, and demands that I disprove the idea. Disprove AGW with science, not insulting anyone who believes in it. TTFN