You misspelled murderers. You know, people that killed someone else with a certain level of depravity necessary to get the death penalty.

I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum of money that GWB is smarter than 95% of the people claiming he's an idiot. Measured by way of accomplishment or IQ, he's done a hell of a lot more than the basement dwellers on Slashdot have.

There is nothing stopping homosexuals from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, they are not treated unequally.

What's to stop you from getting a group of your concerned friends and associates together, pooling funds, and doing the same thing?

Oh yeah...Campaign Finance Reform laws.

Aka the incumbent protection racket.

McCain-Feingold isn't about removing the money out of politics, it's about removing the extraneous players. Like the citizen.

Money is a part of politics it is impossible to remove it, but it's not impossible to remove YOUR access.

You're an idiot. GWB faced continual "revolts" within his own party by "moderate" (aka turncoat) Senators like Jim Jeffords and Arlen Spectre. So much so that the Republican Congressional "majority" during Bush's 6 years never amounted for much, as the Democrats would always count on enough Republicans switching sides to maintain a filibuster on contentious issues even if there was popular support.

Contrast that with the Health Care vote, where there were 0 defections from the Democrat side of the Senate. 61 votes yes. Not a single vote no, not even from some of the supposedly conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Despite there being a solid majority against it. Despite most Senators not even having read the bill.

And you want to claim that Republicans are more Demogogic and Authoritative?

Of course a minority party is going to stick together more than a majority party, but the Democrats all fall into line like good little socialist ducks following their masters Pelosi, Reid, and Obama (and Marx and Engels and Lenin).

But the cost of adding storage isn't simply the cost of buying a hard drive and plugging it in. Typically in a corporate environment it has to be redundant storage in a drive array. In larger corporations, you are talking about EMC SAN drive arrays that are not cheap in and of themselves. The drives they put in are not $50 Seagate green drives. And, when we buy "high tier" storage, such as that for a database, we have to actually buy 3x the storage we need from an OLTP standpoint for backups and disaster recovery. So, when you get done with redundancy, backups, and disaster recovery, you aren't buying 1 TB, you are really buying 15 TB worth of drives. People that compare the cost of corporate disks to what they can buy at Fries don't really get it.

That being said, we get raped for corporate disk.

It's different if that's the cost he's paying for disk space maintenance on his desktop or laptop rather than SAN Storage space.

Why? The conclusions were reached a long time ago. All they are doing now is fitting the data to match the conclusions.

Or maybe it's because the amateurs like Steve McIntyre have a proven track record in punching holes in statistical and computer models that the CRU and Michael Mann have been using to perpetrate their climate fraud.

That's funny you mention "big oil", because BP is a big financial backer of the CRU.

Guess who stand to benefit from a cap and trade regime? The oil companies. They are the players primed to exploit the trading of carbon credits.

That's how the Democratic narrative goes, but the reality was a *bit* different. The Florida Supreme Court kept trying to redefine election law and using variable standards until they found a result that would result in the election of Al Gore. Ironically, the only one that would have resulted in an actual Gore victory (re-count of all Florida votes instead of just targeting Broward county) is the one that Gore and the Florida Supreme Court were afraid to try. Team Gore wasn't exactly being a champion of democracy in this affair.

And in actual regards to the conservative members of the Supreme Court, they have a much better track record siding with the individual than the government as compared to the "liberal" members of the court, everything from Kelo vs Connecticut to Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago. About the only thing the minority members can agree the government can't do is outlaw abortion.

And you are humble to boot.

Neither do the 53% of the American voting public that elected someone like Obama who in turn nominated Sotomayor and Kagan, neither one of whom think there are any restraints to government power other than that which lies in their perfect, judicial hearts. In the end, we get the government we deserve.

Are you really equating our troops to mob hitmen?

Are you really that big of a piece of shit?

Your little revisionist history, of course, falls down on a couple of points.

Specifically, the Republican party NEVER supported segregation and was founded as part of the abolition movement. Democrats...well, not so much. They actively supported slavery and/or segregation through their history.

The REPUBLICAN party was instrumental in ending slavery and ending segregation. It was Eisenhower (you know, the REPUBLICAN President) who desegregated Little Rock, not the great democratic emancipators Truman or Roosevelt or Kennedy. The Civil Rights Act was the first time the Democrats stepped on the stage to be a positive factor in race. Unfortunately, it didn't represent them coming around to the moral right, but just switching sides from favoring whites at the expense of blacks to favoring blacks (and Latinos) at the expense of whites.

Even after the so-called "Southern Strategy", Republicans have never tacitly or surreptitiously embraced segregation as a platform. The South going Republican has more to do with the Democratic party going urban socialist, which is not exactly the demographic profile of the South. This is also why the hotbeds of racial segregation and slavery like Iowa, Kansas, and the Dakotas haven't exactly been electing many Democrats these days. The Democrats are the party of the big city socialist. Flyover country (and that includes the south) need not apply.

In this election cycle, the Democratic candidate is sure to lose anyway. They are running against a popular Republican incumbent in a predominately Republican state in an off-cycle year when Democrats are not exactly very popular judging by poll numbers.

A more likely reason for Alvin Greene winning is the presumptive favorite, Rawls, had a 4% favorable name recognition among Democrats within the state, as reported here:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/06/greene-situation.html

In another words, Rawls was as much of a non-entity as Alvin Greene.