Campy

It was written vaguely intentionally. There were too many concessions that had to be made. Google "The Great Compromise" for an example of what I mean.

Breathe deeply ICE. I didn't see it firsthand, but by all accounts, W's speech said the focus of his 2nd term was going to be on domestic issues. He has a GOP Senate and House, so he should have no problem getting his initiatives enacted. Whether they'll help has yet to be seen of course, but the ball's in his court now. BTW, you missed a great opportunity to educate the board that the Declaration of Independence was modeled after the 1320 Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, and that half of this nation's founding fathers were Scots (including two who were born in Scotland, Witherspoon and Wilson). They didn't do bad work for a bunch of "haggis-eating shmucks."

I'm married. Looking is all that's left!

Abso-freekin-lutely hillarious! When it comes to my Miami, I enjoy my schadenfreude!

Minor inconveniences.

I didn't read the article, just the quotes posted above. Whining never comes across well, does it? Thanks for posting it \GBID/, I got a good chuckle.

Didn't you vote for a failure in business who managed to serve as a state governor? What, pray tell, where his qualifications to be president? That he was in the same party as you? I'm not attacking you, just illustrating some inconsistencies in that statement. B)

Three potential problems I see with that interpretation: 1.- Congress has not levied, ie, declared, war. 2.- The definition of "aid and comfort" is open for debate. 3.- Are they truly "adhering" to the enemy, or merely calling for us to leave? What isn't open for debate is that American citizens have the right to speak out against their government. It went too far with that anarchy group going after a cop, but their right to protest, even if they burn the colors, must be defended as vigorously as any other right granted under the Constitution/Bill of Rights. It's where our nation truly shows her strength. We can agree to disagree, but the argument you're using was heard by the Supreme Court some 200 years ago (google Federalists Republicans Sedition Act), and the citizenry's rights were protected then, just as they should be now.

Nice town, and about to get alot nicer when the Rt 5 project is completed, but still a bit of a drive to UB-Amherst.

Truthfully, I've never had one. I prefer food.

When I was a (very) youngen, we lived in Snyder (Amherst). Nice little community.

You'll be fine getting it in

Best of luck to you, and thanks for the fun.

Let me preface this by saying that I agree that their little anti-Bush pow-wow went over the top. I'm not particularly keen on seeing Americans burning our president in effigy, nor do I like to see the colors set aflame. But the Sedition Act was struck down shortly after it was enacted 200 years ago because it infringed upon the 1st Ammendment. What these protesters are doing is exercising the same rights we're trying to extend to people in Iraq, are they not?

Talk about a double edged sword!

Seriously dude, that sucked.

Cool. They hiring?

I'd say no, regardless of the definition of "winnable.". There will always be people desperate enough to use terrorism as a weapon. And that's the scary part. But if our government can (continue to) prevent further attacks on US soil, that's a major victory in the war.

Well, considering the source of the those who make that claim...

Do they teat MS patients too? Seriously, I've read on this board how the poor want to be poor, and that just because they have none of the advantages that most of us have had, they deserve to stay poor. It's not our job to help them, if they want to change their situation, it's up to them to do it. But it's not fair to blame the doctors? I mean c'mon. When they screw up, she should be sued. So we'll make excuses for doctors, but hold the poor accountable... Lovely.

You're right. You guys never condescendingly throw around labels and insults. [/sarcasm]

I know 2 doctors (an internist and a neurologist) who would disagree. In fact, they both said that they don't worry about being sued at all.

I hope you feel better. Perhaps your little rant makes you feel justified in your calloussnes. But here are some things to consider: 1. -I'm much more moderate than liberal, but you go on ahead and throw around those labels. It shows how smart you are. Really. 2.- Every taxpayer contriibutes to non-profits. Did you forget that whole "tax-exempt status thingy?" All taxpayers share the burden. Also, this taxpayer and his wife have contributed over $5000 this year to our church's offertory. In addition, we donate money to United Way, a homeless mission, the Nat'l MS Society, and more. 3.- You need not worry about "medical folks" being placed in a state of fear. If they do their job, they have nothing to worry about. Funny how you are so eager to transfer blame and responsibility when it fits your party's platform. 4.- I don't care what you smoke, drink, or otherwise ingest. That's your business. 5.- Little men look funny on a high horse.

If the candidate concedes, the electoral voters will oblige him

Oh, I comprehended it. Sorry you weren't capable of discerning the sarcasm in "Bush was wrong." As far as his condition, the AP and the hospital have said he's alive. But far be it from me to introduce facts to your little world. Ding- your hot pocket's ready