no, I hear the pres is letting them set up "in the back" (of the bus) So kind of him.

I wonder if this transition will be as petty and vindictive as '94, when Newt Gingrich put Iowan Jim Nussle in charge of making sure Democrats were all moved to the worst office space available. Now THAT is your tax dollars at work.

how about when clintons bunch removed all the W's from keyboards. oh yea, thats different, thats funny right?

hows it feel lib?

Just another Conservative myth, mitch. According to the General Services Administration at the time;

"the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals

Hey.. with Elections come Consequenes..

Get in the Back Seat Democrats..

How many decades have you been waiting to say that to whitey, Steve?

Toss me the keys ED and I'll go fetch the Winnebago...

Hell with that, Feisty. I've got a tank.

John B is correct. Even Bush himself dismissed those stories.

hillarious that with the racist you have in the white house you libs still try to use the race card to fend off dissagreement.

keep trying, its funnier and less effective each and every time.

Mitch, I'm merely making fun of Steve since he has a rather nasty habit of trying to quantify his moronic statements with the fact that he's black - as if I or anyone with half a brain actually gives a @!$%# about his skin tone.

Mitch -

You know the "back of the bus" comment is a misquote by Fox News, right? Obama was using his Republicans-drove-the-car-in-a-ditch metaphor. He butchered the metaphor in the quote pretty badly, but the actual quote is something to the effect that Republicans can tag along, but they'll have to sit in the back of the car. He was not in any way referencing the Civil Rights movement.

At least, I assume that's what you're referring to when calling Obama racist.

Exodite Dragon..

I understand you wish to break people down in to Colors. because you are a Racist.. I said Democrat..

John B is correct. Even Bush himself dismissed those stories.

Thank you Richard - this is more of what we need around here from both sides! ;0)

Steve, I wouldn't give two @!$%#s if you styled yourself a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue (that's a Hitchhiker's reference for those of you keeping track of all my geeky quips!) but you have to remember, because I've told you this DOZENS of times now and it hasn't stuck:

I hate you because you're stupid, not because you're black~

Exodite...

You see. you jump to conclusions about the Color of my Skin because i said i am not white..

i think the real person that is Stupid is you .. You Assume way to much and that makes you more Dangerous then even Feisty Redhead who i disagree with most of the time..

You Fit into that Small Minortiy of White Republicans that are Racist. and are the type of person that gives the republican party a bad Name. do us all a favor and just leave it..

That's fine and dandy, Steve! Your big mistake in making assumptions is that I'm actually human - in all reality I'm a tremendously over-sized, winged, mythic reptile with a penchant for torching picturesque hamlets in the English countryside and chowing down on virgins - seventy-two at a time, mind, all Muslim.

I care not for your petty, simian concerns about skin color and ethnic rivalry! You are like unto mere insects before me, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes Exodite...

Your Racist view are exposed. and i never Assumed you were Human..

God, you're a better lol-cow than Sharron Angle, Steve~

Lighten up, dude. ;)

Anon Monster!
what more evidence do you need:
"the police acted stupidly"
"We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends"
how bout the AG not prosecuting civil rights crimes unless the victims are non-white?
What are you totally blind or just ignorant?
if the shoe was on another foot, there would be riots!

Hey..

Just showing everyone here that you are nothing but a racist, sorry you can't take it. but hey. if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen..

Steve. You ready for this one?

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.

Not to offend or anything, but why does "Exodite" remind me of Buckwheat singing "Enter Sandman"?

Yes..

Yawn.. you bore me..

...Richard, I'm so doing that for Halloween next year.

Mitch wrote:

what more evidence do you need:
"the police acted stupidly"
"We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends"
how bout the AG not prosecuting civil rights crimes unless the victims are non-white?
What are you totally blind or just ignorant?
if the shoe was on another foot, there would be riots!

The first two aren't indicative of racism (he took the side of a black guy? FINISH HIM.) The AG civil rights deal, I don't believe. Not to generalize, but I would expect the vast majority of civil rights crimes to involve non-whites, and more recently, homosexuals.

I am, in fact, half blind. I, and other cyclops (es? ies? a gaggle of cyclops?) take offense.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think anyone would be too enraged. Except maybe liberal conspiracy theorists. Also, I'd be rather uncomfortable. Unless I was wearing slippers. A slipper on the other foot? Well that's just fine.

Just the name "Exodite", not the person behind it.

"Ex-oh-dite, he-toe-wite,

gwain-of-tand, off to Bev-er Bev-er waand"

And please folks, think "Eddie Murphy" if you read this.

Thanks, Richard. Consider yourself backed up the next time we find ourselves on the same side of something.

John B, Democrats could not have been "moved to the worst office space available" in '95 because incumbents retain their current office space. Only *vacated* offices (retirees/defeated incumbents) are available for freshman members, and assignment of those is handled by non-partisan Congressional staff. (I've watched the process on C-SPAN. The newbs scurry around looking at what's available, then the Sergeant at Arms draws their names, and they get to pick office space in the order their names were drawn.)

Wanna dislike Nussle & Newt? Fine with me; I kinda dislike a few on the other side, and I wouldn't want to forego that pleasure either. Just take care to rip them for what they actually did, not the lazy demonizing lie someone fed you.

porkopolitan, that's the tradition, but not how they handled it that round. With great fanfare they kicked established lawmakers out of their offices and took them for their own.

Indie woman in Denver - You speak volumes.

The GOP is in for some infighting that will spill over into their legislative agenda. We are going to see GRIDLOCK in epic proportions.

All of you that voted GOP to 'make the two parties compromise' have created a monster that you will do ANYTHING to get rid of in 24 months. The GOP's Tea Partyiers are not compromising anything.

And for those of you that wanted GRIDLOCK so that 'no more damage can be done'? You got your wish. Let's see how long you can hold your breath before you pass out.

I think 2 years would be long enough.

gridlock, and MANY investigations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What makes you think we elected republicans to force compromise? Maybe, just maybe, we elected them because we like the way they govern better and this is just step one of a plan to regain control of both houses and the presidency. Now, I know what you're thinking. You can save the "they drove the car into the ditch" crap. You've overplayed that card and we're really not interested. I want the same thing for this country that many of my liberal counterparts want, we just see different approach to getting there. I will never believe that tax and spend is the right course. You will never believe that lower taxes and spending are the better option. Lets just agree to disagree.

Suzy - we don;t even have a PLAN of what the GOP is going to do with their newly minted power other than Repeal the Health Care Law and Make President Obama fail.

OK, that's fine, if that is the agenda you want to persue.

How does that help AMERICA? How does that help America get jobs? How does that help America lower the deficit? How does that help America stop outsourcing?

If the GOP demostrates lower taxes and spending will help America, I am all for it. However, the HISTORY of the GOP when they are in power states otherwise (if we go back 30 years and look at the history).

I would love to agree to disagree, but I cannot. I have nothing to agree/disagree with!!

Help me out here. What EXACTLY is the GOP going to do to help AMERICA go forward?

Well Pietro, fortunately I'm sane enough NOT to run for office, so I don't actually have to be the one with the plan you want. What I'd like to see and why I voted for the candidates I did because it's what they want to do, too, is see the spending spree the democrats have been on for the last many months put to an end. Spending your way out of debt has never worked in the private sector, it's not going to work in government either. I'd like to see heath care repealed in part- there are good parts to the bill but there are extreme over-reaches (requiring purchase or facing fines, requiring businesses to provide coverage or facing fines which I suspect will actually reduce the number of employer sponsored plans because in many cases it will cost less to pay the fine than it will to over coverage, the 1099 requirement, among other totally and completely unrelated add ons to the bill) that need to go. WE also need to surrender the fantasy that this is paid for with cuts to Medicare. Same with most of the other supposedly paid for bills that have passed recently. They're paid for with cuts that will never happen. I would like to see a genuine effort to end illegal immigration. I would like to see a genuine effort to reduce spending- look for duplication and redundancies in defense, social programs and pork. I would like to see less government intrusion in our lives (And yes, I do mean less- stay out of my bedroom, stay out of my decisions regarding my family, stay out of my health care decisions, the whole thing. I realize you likely perceive this as contrary to my party's habits but I know that I am not a lone voice- the republicans need to back off their social agenda and focus on the financial one as it's the only one that matters). Settle the debate on the Bush tax cuts NOW. And for now, that needs to be an extension on all of the cuts. This is not the time to raise taxes on anyone. When the economy recovers we can deal with the reality that taxes will have to go up to pay for the spending spree we've been on but first I want to see spending cuts and new spending kept to the bare minimum. THEN we can talk about "fair" rates for all earners.

So there you have it. What I believe the GOP can do to help America go forward. Now can we agree to disagree?

Hi, Pietro.

What's new?

Suzy - you make a great case for the GOP and I applaud you for your efforts. I can actually support some of the things that you put forth.

BUT -

The question SHOULD HAVE BEEN - what is the GOP LEADERSHIP putting forth to help America? I was not clear in my question to you and I will do better to be more concise.

With that being said, about the GOP leadership -

The short answer is - PAYBACK. Payback against the President for making them look like utter fools during the Healthcare debate and payback aganist the President of general principle.

Now, if the GOP had put out a 'plan' like you have outlined above, then we would not have much issue, and I COULD agree to disagree. However, we do not have that. We have more partisan bickering, investigations (potentially), repeals of Laws already passed, and just mean-spiritedness against a President that they COULD possibly work with.

The American people voted these guys in and will have to deal with the obfuscation and a lack of a coherent legislative plan.

So, the bottom line is this - Suzy, if you were the GOP leadership (and I am pretty sorry you are NOT), I could see common ground and could possibly meet you in the middle to get things done. Since you are not, and you still have the same, tired, ineffective INCOMPETENT leadership, we CONTINUE have the same ol' same ol'.

Thanks, America. Looks like you've been had.

Again.

Mixed Bag - what's new? Not a whole lot.

How about you?

The 112th Congress, Pietro.

Brand new...doesn't look a whole lot like the last one.

Just as the professionals (and others) predicted it wouldn't.

This is true, very true.

Keep that tin foil hat strapped on tight there NJNB... So now a UK publication is MORE credible than Fact Check or Snopes?

You'll excuse me if I don't jump on that theory won't cha?

Funny you skimmed right over the reference to common sense... not that I would expect anything less from you!

NONSENSE if much more your cup of tea...

Several things on this.

Does anyone know of any documentation concerning the travel expenses of previous Presidents? Documentation that would list itemized costs including those related to security details? If so, surely some comparison can be made from one administration to the next to give us a good ballpark figure to start from, if we're all intent on determing how much it costs to fly Obama to India. Does any such documentation exist for the past twenty or thirty years?

Furthermore, if this question ever came up for previous executives such as Reagan and Bush, what were their responses to inquiries (if any) about the costs of their security services?

One thing regarding Snopes and FactCheck - I find them to be concerned with the truth and the truth only. FactCheck debunks as many liberal claims as it does conservative, so I wouldn't write them off just yet. I really, really doubt there's any political motivation here to give the administration's denial of the allegedly exorbitant cost of this state visit a pass. With so many unknowns, the best possible option, in my view, is to go with the view of the most credible element in the equation. I'd sooner believe Snopes and FactCheck than an Indian state official, no offense to the Indians.

I'm sure the Brits do have some REAL journalists - some of whom may even work for real newspapers or the BBC. But according to Wiki:

The Daily Mail is a British, daily middle market tabloid newspaper...... The Daily Mail was Britain's first daily newspaper aimed at the newly-literate "lower-middle class market resulting from mass education, combining a low retail price with plenty of competitions, prizes and promotional gimmicks".

Not to mention, I'm sure, all the latest dish on the royal's own "scandals"......

Thanks for the insight, JoAnne. Consider the credibility and purpose of the source; yellow journalism is no kind of journalism at all.

E. D., I agree with you on Factcheck. I went to factcheck. They say they did not get a "credible rebuttal", but do not believe it because, well, it just cannot be true.

Sorry, it is not up to their usual standard.

I do not think that we need a complete breakdown, a simple percentage would suffice. I do think, however, that an official of the Indian government who is involved in coordinating this trip is a credible source, and that was the source for the figure that the White House will neither confirm nor deny.

I did read somewhere that so far, the most expensive trip by a U.S. President was Bill Clinton's trip to China, at $50million.

No Jo,

Why do you even try to communicate with feisty?

You ask valid questions? Back them up with data to prove what you say.

And what do you get from feisty?

sarcasm

I guess that is all she has to work with since she cannot rebuttal your argument.

But we're used to it.

Paid trolls, spouting sarcasm, of no value what so ever.

Why don't you debate someone that has the capability to debate with you No Jo?

No sense trying to have a battle of wits with feisty..........she is unarmed.

Well, I tell you what. If we suddenly see a $2 billion jump in the national debt after this trip's concluded, then we'll know for sure. However, given the fanaticism and zeal with which Bush's administration concerned itself with security on trips and visits in conjunction with the knowledge that (by your statement) Clinton's China trip was the single most expensive thus far, reasonable inference still leads me to think this $200-million-per-day figure is a wild exaggeration.

JoAnne, you need to travel more.

In the U.K., tabloid only means the way the paper is folded. So, both the New York Daily News and the Post are tabloids.

It does not have the same connotation as the word tabloid in this country, which typically refers to supermarket checkout papers with headlines like "Bigfoot spotted in local Walmart".
Similarly, when we refer to yellow journalism, we mean something seedy and unseemly; in the U.k., it refers to the colour of the newsprint. The highly esteemed Financial Times is a yellow journal,(although I admit, it looks more pink to me).

Anyway, this is a legitimate newspaper, not the U.K. Version of the Star, or whatever you had in mind.

Joe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Dailymail.jpg

That capture tells me all I need to know about the quality of The Daily Mail.

no joe, no bo, nj

Unless and until one of our intrepid "journalists" come up with something more than " it could not possibly cost that much" as a rebuttal, I will go with the Brits, who have REAL journalists whose source was a representative of the Indian government who is directly involved in this trip.

Somehow, I am not convinced by non denial denials.

Should they provide whatever; as long as it involves the President; you'd still be a nonbeliever.

I think George Lucas was the one who coined the term "suspension of disbelief" to explain why we willingly accept movie devices that have no hope of being plausible in order to be entertained.

Anyone who believes that an entire FLEET has been dispatched to the Indian Ocean just to protect one hotel, and it'll cause as much per day as the ENTIRE Afghan war has elevated "suspension of disbelief" to the level of psychosis.

Should they provide whatever; as long as it involves the President; you'd still be a nonbeliever.

...kind of like how you and Feisty are always so willing to vilify conservatives regardless of what they do or how they actually act, eh, Bev?

EDIT: John, Lucas popularized the term, but it's been in use since the 1800's dealing specifically with (of all things) poetry.

Hey. in the words of Nancy "you have been Fired" Pelosi.

You will know what it cost when you get the Bill .. other then that. meh....

Steve, adults are talking. But by all means, keep posting~

And the bill will be 2000 pages long.

Joking aside, I truly hope the numbers are wrong. It would be $2 billion that could be saved by video conferencing.

Yes we are talking.

and since you dont fit that Discription of adult. Please do us all a favor and leave..

Anyone who believes that an entire FLEET has been dispatched to the Indian Ocean just to protect one hotel, and it'll cause as much per day as the ENTIRE Afghan war has elevated "suspension of disbelief" to the level of psychosis

It's not a matter of what's true & what isn't John... the only reason this keeps going is an attempt to distract from the real issues... If it was up to NJNB this particular President would be flying coach if she had her way!

Sorry all... if I don't take the word of someone who been repeatedly proven to play fast & loose with the truth to further their own agenda!

You can say what you want about me and my posting style but I HAVE never lied nor have I been above apologizing when warranted...

Now, now, Feisty. If I'd come across the article first instead of Joe, I'd have posted it. The mere notion of a state trip this costly at the expense of the taxpayer should make any of us livid. The meat and potatoes, here, is whether there's any actual truth to the article, not Joe's credibility.

EDIT: Steve... "Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

Steve - nobody likes you.

NJNB - I have to agree with John and ED: it's a pretty strong rebuttal of the argument when a war, with tens of thousands of troops and equipment on the ground, costs less than the estimated cost of a President's trip on a daily basis. Factcheck's argument seems solid.

Figures, the conservatives suddenly become concerned about security costs. Their idea, put President Obama in the WH and don't let him leave because if he goes to a foreign country, he might improve America's image overseas (destroyed by Bush/Cheney); if he goes on vacation, it might cost them a couple pennies. Didn't hear all this fuss when Bush was the pres, how many trips to Crawford and Kennebunkport. The right didn't give a hoot how much they were paying but god forbid, that the democratic President of the USA elected by a majority of the voters be given any consideration for his safety, security, rest and relaxation. Bush went on vacation quite often, as did Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, FDR, JFK, Truman, and probably George Washington. You know what, I don't care how much the security costs because protecting the President and his family is crucial and I don't care whether that president is a republican or a democrat.

Here's my opinion--the conservatives have jumped down the rabbit hole. This is ridiculous, petty, silly, selfish and wide open anti-Obama dislike.

This just in from CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021841-503544.html):

"The story lacked a named source, and the $200 million claim was credited to "a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit."

The claim quickly gained traction on the right, thanks in part to a link on the conservative news aggregator The Drudge Report. Among those citing it is Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who responded to a question from CNN's Anderson Cooper last night on how she would reduce the deficit by citing the cost of the presidential trip."

So, rest easy, NoJoe; the REAL journalists - the Drudge Report and Michele Bachmann - have got this one covered for you!

Jody, c'mon.

You can write with a straight face that Bush's vacations were never "discussed"?

They all get criticized for "vacations". I have to say I had never heard numbers like the current ones.

If the numbers ARE true, would you join even a little bit in the criticism?

Thanks JoAnne...

I would keep a copy of that though... cause you know this won't be the end of this nonsense... ;0)

Does beg the question as to whether or not she'll admit CBS has more credibility than Drudge & Bachmann. lol

Wonder what Proud Republican has to say now...

See my above post.....................it is still correct

So far, no one has actually refuted or supported the numbers in a convincing fashion.

So far no one has made a convincing case that it's true.

An anonymous source said to work for a provincial government in India makes a claim on an Indian news site of unknown veracity that a routine state visit will cost more than a war that sprawls out over an entire country through rugged terrain against a stubborn foe. It's like asking a reasonable, educated person to believe that God created the entire Earth and all the life on it in 6 days, exactly as it exists today...

Never mind, look at who I'm talking about.

A little rough on you considering I see that you later backed me on the "W key" issue above, but the wingnutosphere is going nuts over something that doesn't seem credible.

One man's wingnutosphere is another's Beverlyosphere.

Who ARE you talking about by the way? And I thought the wars were costing trillions, not a couple of billion.

The problem John is if you were attributing your last line or so to me, it borders on going nuts over something that isn't credible.

Or do you make a practice of painting all with the same brush?

A number of sources are saying $200 million a day (among a list of other things). The White House says:

...details associated with security procedures and costs, but it is safe to say these numbers are widely inflated.

Factcheck says:

And in this case, the president is attending a G-20 meeting and will be accompanied by several cabinet officials.

No joe gets ripped here for not providing better support. But the White House and Factcheck do not provide support either. Kinda funny. Another funny thing? The G-20 meeting is in South Korea, not India.

White House deny 3,000 people going?Curious. Washington Times reports the Obamas (White House has booked the 570 rooms at the Taj Mahal Hotel. Oh yea, and 125 rooms at the Taj President, and 80-90 rooms at the Grand Hyatt, and 80-90 at the Oberoi. 865 rooms at 4 different places? Kinda weird, even if one place has to be booked up for Obama security reasons. Mumbai Mirror has The Obamas different schedules and all the streets/buildings being closed down and sanitized (bombs) There have 40-50 security guys over there working on it.

Air Force 1 and a couple of other of other jumbo jets. Then you have you have the 45 car convoy for Barry. The articles also mentioned some naval vessels to form a 330 km shield against a missile attack.

Other articles repeatedly mention 3,000 people. Room numbers kinda add up. One mentions 600 cars for 3,000. Sounds about right. Who knows? Most of the time you have a decoy Air Force 1, a back up for a trip like this sometimes, too. Oh yea, Marine 1, and a Marine 1 decoy, and a back up. Oh yea, throw in some C-17s to fly this stuff over. Almost forgot, need some Blackhawks for the security guys. Doggie treats for the 30 dog teams. BTW - they refuel in the air? Throw some KC-10s in. AWACs and fighters? Makes sense.

How much does this cost? $200 million a day? Sounds crazy, but $400-$700 tennie shoes for the garden seems crazy. Taking 40-50 of the girls to Spain seemed crazy. Who knows.

But with Barack and Michelle only staying for 2 DAYS before doing it all over again for their next stop ......

Irregardless, Michelle ain't a cheap date.

Yep, never let the facts get in your way, NJ. But this would all be a non issue with you if Hillary were President right? Do you challenge what she spends on travel? Or do you reserve that for the black MAN that won the election?

What we're saying is that I can't prove a Presidential entourage DOESN'T cost more than an entire war, therefore a Presidential entourage MUST cost more than an entire war. This is a classic "appeal to ignorance" argument, one of the most basic logical fallacies. It's like saying you can't prove the Sun is up while you're deep in a cave, therefore the Sun must not exist.

mitch j

I hope they as open to the executives suggestions as he was when they tried discussing obamacare with him! Read: no compromise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL...I hope it's not a transition to China.

mitch j

WE have stormed the castle, next to fall: the Monarchy! The Republic will be restored!

RESTORE DEMOCRACY. I see you calling America one of dolty Glenn Beck's terms he gets paid by the Chamber of Comerce to propagandize; Republic.

Bev, crying does not become you, wha wha

"elections have consequences" "we won"

hurts dont it?

ha ha ha

sorry Bev, I didnt realize your not familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance. Or is it that you just choose to not recognize it, and our proper form of government?

I suppose its good your at least watching Beck, thats a start.

mitch j

"elections have consequences" "we won"

We??? Did we? You didn't win both houses. America lost even though you won the House.

I was referring to the conservative footsoldiers, and using your Messiah's words against him. I am a Patriot, not a Republican.

I see you calling America one of dolty Glenn Beck's terms he gets paid by the Chamber of Comerce to propagandize; Republic.

"Republic" is a Glenn Beck term?

That has to be a joke. Right?

we got the house. and are surrounded by the Enemy.. "we got the Bastards right where we want them"

Bev, we ARE a Republic.

By the way, it came over the wire recently that you have been unanimously selected to receive the "Norm Crosby" award for journalism.

your waisting your time, like many others, she does not care for or recognize the last few lines of our Pledge

First of all, the correct technical term is "republican democracy", meaning a democracy in which sovereignty is held by the people. This insistence that we argue about a distinction without a difference is brought to you by the crazy John Birch Society of the 1960s. They're the original repository of claims that the currency is ALWAYS in imminent collapse, virtually everyone within the government (including elected officials) is a sleeper agent acting on a secret plan to hand over American sovereignty to the TriLateral Commission and UN, and that it's all being directed by the Build A Bear Group. (spelling suspect on that last one.)

The "Messiah" comment is an equally crazy concept, a cynical manipulation of Evengelical Christian Fundamentalists designed to be an inaudible dog whistle to most of us while clearly signaling the Christian Right that the President is in fact the "false messiah", or Antichrist. Would the Right stoop that low? Look here and judge for yourself. http://o.bamapost.com/

John, I would submit that the correct term is "representative Republic".

How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

As many angels as it takes to get down to the point, I suppose.

Madison defined the republic as a "representative democracy". What seems to be somewhat consistent is that the founders did not intend a "true" democracy.

What also seems consistent is that there is no consistency in the definitions.

You are correct, a lot of different terms can be applied to EXACTLY our unique and original form of government. That can lead to some interesting discussions.

mitch, I had it in mind to give you a couple of respones but I see you're confused. This is not Wizards and Dragons. You have to log on to a game site for that, if your mommy will let you.

your exposing your blind obediance

Mitch. Hope you don't buy the gold coins or food insurance Beck is selling, too.

dont watch him, but its good you do.

I tune in once in awhile--need a good laugh and it's an all day comedy show.

got it, same reason I watch MSNDC and the clinton news network. Like your President "We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us", I know who the enemy is, and enjoy the DNC propaganda from Minister Axelrod.

Kind of like watching The 700 Club, eh, Jody?

mitch -

Our wonderful hosts here at First Thoughts stipulated a long time ago that no one ever wins an argument in politics by playing the "Nazi" card. However, if anyone ever has, it would be whoever thought up this sign at the Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity this past weekend (which I confess to having posted earlier on First Thoughts):

"____— Are Comparable to Nazis:

a. Democrats

b. Republicans

c. Presidents I Dislike

d. People I Dislike

e. Nazi's"

Don't puzzle over it too long - the correct answer is "e".