...of eating. And so I'd rather vote "No Confidence" than help put another form of crap in the White House... a vote for anyone just for the sake of voting for someone only serves to further enable the continuation of more crap being nominated.

This is why I voted "No Confidence" in 2008. I heard the cries of "I don't understand how you can throw away your vote like that" to which I responded, "With those who run for election, I don't understand how you can throw your country away just for the sake of saying you voted for someone." A vote for the "lesser of two evils" is still a vote for evil; it's just a matter of degree. If I go to a grocery store and see nothing but various degrees of crap on the shelves, I'd rather be outside the store working to help put better food on the shelves instead of eating the crap offered just for the sake of eating; it only serves to encourage more crap be put on the shelves and I'd rather starve with my principle than eat crap for the sake...

"....that *IS* their way of thinking."

It's all in the eye of the beholder... Janeane Garafalo and liberals like her who believe this only do so because that it their way of thinking. They only wear dark-framed eyeglasses to come off as appearing intelligent because, in reality, those glasses are worn by libs to "hide the ignorant element of the Democratic Party, the liberal movement and the progressive movement, one in the same. People like Janeane Garafalo like to keep the ignorance very covert. And so trendy eyeglasses provide this great opportunity to say you can say, 'Look, this is not a knuckle-dragging, unintelligent, utterly dumb movement. Look at our glasses; we're smart!'"

To be "agnostic" carries two separate definitions. 1. a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2. a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something Broad-brushing the definition of "agnostic" as simply "without knowledge" in order for the point to appear that Ms. Rhee is "without knowledge" regarding what works best in education is, by defeinition, wrong. As the definition states, "unknown" - or to use anonymous's term "without knowledge" - pertains to ULTIMATE reality such as God; not just any segment of reality as a whole. This is why it also...

Well said again, Michael! The problem here is that America's prosperity has allowed us to advance as a civil society; whereas these terrorists carry with them a 7th century mentality. Not using "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" has nothing to do with "maintaining America's values" - "values" is just a word used to sell the idea that these techniques are beneath us when in reality they're not being used because the current administration thinks it can score brownie points within the Muslim community. Such a stance is viewed as weakness by those fighting in the 7th century and such a stance is moreso reflective of the athlete who would rather look good and lose than the athlete who would rather look bad and win. This is a war...

Thank You, Michael! As soon as I read Jacoby's sentence referring to why Japanese officers were hanged, I needed to comment but I first checked to see if this had been addressed already. For no other reason than because of the commonality that the interrorgators use water is this current technique even referred to as "waterboarding". Well, that and those who disagree with the technique need to call it what it isn't in order spin it into a definition that fits their agenda. Only a lib couldn't tell the difference between a skateboard and a Ferrari.

I didn't think it was off subject at all; Trump is a perfect example. Trump has openly stated "what acts of aggression [he'd] commit" if he were to get elected. If he were to get elected, this is where "citizens of a country are also potentially responsible" because we knew what we were getting when we voted for him. Thankfully, Trump won't come close so there's nothing to worry about with this cotton-candy head sitting in the Oval Office. And I couldn't agree more, Socabill.... this was NOOOOOO assassination.

But of course... after having pillaged all of the penguins and polar bears for their "land". Oh wait, globull warming is doing that already!

No one "accuses" anyone of using the term "keepin' my kind down"; it's not an accusation when it's actually been said. "Keepin' my kind down" has been said tirelessly by those who fall for the Democratic Party lie that you're broke because someone is keeping you down; not because you won't get up and take care of your own problems. If it's not being "kept down"; it's "workin' for the man" or any other fist-raising, ignorant victimhood drivel. You beg the question, "Who else do cons accuse of using 'keepin' my kind down'? Don't dodge the truth. Lets be honest." Then lets be honest... who else moans and whines the most that their failures are the result of "the man keepin me down"? It's not an accusation but fact when that is what...