"Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs rejected the notion that the vote was influenced by the United States' standing: "No, I think you saw both at the U.N. General Assembly, you saw at the G20 last week ... I think virtually every measure of our standing in the world is different than it was just this time last year. So I don't read too much of that into this.""

People hold all kinds of opinions. "Liberals" don't blame Bush for the loss. Like the Olympics we don't win all the Golds. That doesn't mean we shouldn't participate and it most certainly doesn't mean that we don't review why we lost and what we could do better next time.

just 6 years ago this same crowd was threatening the lives of Dixie Chicks and driving tractors over records simply because Natalie Main said that she was embarrassed that her President came from her home state. Now you all shout with glee because the U.S. lost out on an honor, greatly sought after by several deserving nations. Obama was only one of all the leaders of the likely candidates to show. Obama was one of several heads of state that came back empty handed.

If he would have won you would have claimed corruption. Now that he lost fairly, you claim incompetence. Heads I win, tails you fail. Either way, you are hypocrites of the highest order.

Like the sports the Olympics are based on, only one of a very talented...

Fines up to $25,000 and jail sentences no more than 1 year. This is a rather strange memo, stating the upper limits of the fine. No one really even knows whether this is legit and if it is, what the heck it means. I am glad we got it from Ensign though. Now there is an honest chap.

The right wing seems to have a consistent pattern of not being able to understand the gravity of issues or the problems in the world. This whole ACORN business has been a thorn in the right's side. Why? It seems that the whole idea of the government taking from the taxpayer and giving to poor blacks is simply the one cardinal rule worth fighting for. The entire giveaway to ACORN by the most liberal estimates amounts to peanuts in terms of government spending. Endangered species get more. To think that this gets to the heart of government corruption is ludicrous. For some reason ACORN gets more coverage than farm subsidies and military contractors.

If a was a political cynic on the left (which I am not) I would love this kind of...

I won't be watching his show. Seinfield had some of the same base humor but it was funny because we were in on the joke. It showed the darkness at the heart of man. It made us squirm because it reflected an emptiness and valuelessness at the heart of a certain society. Curb Your Enthusiasm on the other hand exposes the fact that this is really who David is; a sad excuse for a man. He has no morals. He has no scruples. Even, at the most objective of levels, the humor is gone because David doesn't even grasp how wrong his own acts are. The shock of it all is missing. There is no one in the show with any redeeming quality to remind you that what you are seeing is really wrong. David's audience sees his actions as funny, not twisted at all....

Last year, during the campaign, the conservative Heritage foundation claimed that ACORN had received 35 million dollars in federal funding. That is the size of it as estimated by a conservative group for the purpose of condemning them. The claim is made, with no evidence to back it, that the stimulus includes 8.5 billion dollars for ACORN. First of all it doesn't pass the smell test. Secondly, there is no proof that it is there. It's made up. The idea that ACORN would apply for or get 8.5 billion dollars is ridiculous. Perhaps, before you accuse me of being delusional you could show me where in the stimulus bill ACORN would be given 8.5 billion dollars (a hint: it's not there).

do it artfully.

"people who fail to pay the $1,900 fee for not purchasing coverage under Obamacare would be charged with a misdemeanor, charged a $25,000 penalty or up to a year in jail."

Read the hand written note carefully. This isn't what it says. The note talks of "filing, paying, and maintaining records" and a misdemeanor, fine up to $25,000 (not charged a $25,000 penalty) and no more than (not up to) a year in jail.

If you lie in the little things you will lie in the big things. What you have written is a lie. We must now question whether or not this even has to do with mandates as your word cannot be trusted.

right? I mean, if I say some cray old thing and someone reports me, what would the reasoning behind a police visit be? No crime. No charge. Any arrest would occur because of the crime, not the thought.

Someone said this earlier and it is worth repeating. We take the state of mind of the murderer into account now. Some get the charge of manslaughter. Some get the charge of premeditated murder because of the defendants state of mind. Some lack the presence of mind to stand trial. These are all conditions and states of the mind.

It seems like the whole thought crimes argument is bogus.

Secondly, there is the issue of free speech. If I cannot be denied my right to free speech I cannot be charged with causing violence...

Does the bill make thought or speech a criminal act? No, you would have to commit a crime to be charged with a "hate crime".

Does the bill infringe on "free speech?"
We shall see. (Sec. 8) Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech. Anyone charged with a hate crime would have the charge overturned if it was determined to be a "free speech issue".

Is it constitutional?
We shall see. (Sec. 7) Provides that any provision of this Act that is held to be unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining provisions of this Act. It seems the authors considered the possibility of a legal challenge.

What does it do and is it a useful...

welfare reform has been a red herring in the past. It's actually more like a shell game or a magic trick. It forces everyone to look at one issue (which is very complicated but contributes to the problem in only minor ways) while overlooking the real monster issues that drive cost but have powerful forces financially invested in their existence.

The fact is we can completely cut out welfare or civil litigation and while you might make a dent in the budget, but not enough to make a real difference. Corporate subsidies are far greater than welfare subsidies. Insurance administration and insurance fraud are far greater than malpractice insurance and litigation costs. Should welfare have been reformed? Of course. Should their be...