Max Fischer

You are by far the biggest moron on this board. And that's saying a lot.

The GOP has gone over all of this countless times. Why is it that more Americans are supporting Obama than the war hero John McCain right now? Could it be that your characterization are simply wrong? (oh, right, it's the media's fault)

What's an RCow? You said you're voting for Obama but you've never said an honest and insightful thing on this board.

Look Smart Guy, the issue is simple. Just because it doesn't fit your world view doesn't make it so. Come on, dispute the facts that I posted earlier. It's much harder than sitting on your throne declaring yourself smarter than others without ever offering a scrap of evidence Psudeo-intellectualls like you are so tiresome. You remind me of this guy: DC Tom It would make sense if DC stands for DC Comics.

You can't even give us a straight answer on who you're voting for and why.

EPA re: Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. -- Won't you consider that the CO2/nature balance has been a bit out of whack for oh, I don't know, over 200 years. The amount of CO2 has risen while nature's counterbalance has decreased thus throwing the whole thing off? -- Don't you think its possible, and even logical, that this imbalance can contribute to climate and health problems worldwide? -- Do you seriously believe that by reducing CO2 emissions from cars and industrial plants that we will reduce CO2 levels LOWER than in 1770, thus throwing off nature's balance the other way? -- You're not nearly as smart as you say you are. First-ever study to link increased mortality specifically to carbon dioxide emissions While it has long been known that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to climate change, the new study details how for each increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States, according to the paper by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.

I guess I tend to listen to the scientists. What do your voodoo doctors say?

Yup. Then again, I'm willing to pay a few bucks a month to make sure my kids are healthy and we all don't wind up spending billions to treat those who get sick. Simply stemming the rise of asthma cases alone would more than pay for the cost. Then again, I'm only quoting science.

I think we should ignore the fact that it's a "dangerous" pollutant. I'm still upset that science smeared lead and carbon monoxide as "dangerous." When science and facts start influencing our decisions the terrorists win.

"As the Chairman of the Welcoming Committee, I would like to present this laurel, and hardy handshake . . ." Classic.

Please, please explain why there have been maybe a handful of voter fraud cases brought by state or federal authorities for the past few elections. Hint: while there may be cases of attempt to file false voter registration forms, these "voters" are not added to the voter rolls do to a host of bi-partisan safeguards, and thus, they either do not vote, or if they vote provisionally their vote is thrown out afterward. Don't you get it? Oh, wait, the facts are not the point.

Those who lived from 1865-1913 who would not approve of today's America: - segregationists - anti-Semites - robber barons - the top 1% that owned 90%+ of the wealth - those who employed child labor - those opposed to a woman's right to vote - land owners - the monopolies - stupidnation Shall we go on?

"Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, 'just a supporter.'" That pretty much sums it up. Jackson doesn't speak for anyone but Jackson. Obama has made Jackson and Farrakan irrelevant. No one listens to Jackson anymore -- accept the far-right and the NY Post. I'm not a big HRC fan, but only a hater could find anything to dislike in her answers to a reporters questions. Good Lord, get a life.

We should be vigilant and vigorously prosecute anyone who attempts to vote more than once. Fact is, it's very, very difficult to pull off. Does it happen? Yes, but to a scale that is inconsequential. I would say there are far and away more human tabulation and input errors than voter fraud. With today's technology and laws -- put into bi-partisan effect - it is very difficult to pull it off and simply not worth the effort. You only get to vote once under a name and it makes no sense to produce multiple IDs when its so much easier to simply get other people to vote. Under your scenario, how would it work? And more important, why the hell would they use your plan when there are far simpler ways to win an election? Like, get their neighbors to register and then drive them to the polls? Your conspiracy makes no logical sense at all.

So, your solution is armed revolt against the United States? Doesn't that make you a terrorist? I'm calling Cheney.

You lost us there. Take a look at history. Believe it or not, this is the best it's ever been. Please tell us why it was so much "better" before? This should be interesting.

Seriously, which party, third or otherwise, is closer to the way you think things should be? We've been on this same path for 225+ years and I think we've made some pretty good progress. Yes, I understand the Roman analogies but someone needs to be a bit more specific on drawing those similarities and what we should do about it.

So things were "good" 25-30 years ago? You mean Watergate? Were they the good old days? Please name a time in the history of the US or any other nation you would point to as "better." What is your solution?

Yes, you are. The number of prosecutions for voter fraud is minuscule. Why? Because it so very rarely happens. It's simply a propaganda campaign that Republicans bring up every two years. If your really care about fair elections you would express a little outrage about the systematic and very well documented history of voter intimidation and misinformation.

No safe room? Oh, so you live in the fortress? You know, "they." Come on, you know, "them." The US Government. We're among friends. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). The black helicopters are coming soon. Those I "worship?" You mean the United States? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? The republic? Capitalism? I don't know if I call it worship but I think it works fairly well. At least better than the other systems. Why do you bad mouth all those things? Why is it that you are right and everyone else is wrong?

Just how much canned goods and bottles of water do you keep in your safe room? How long do you think you can holdout when they come gunning for you?

Which part don't you support? Will this effect your vote for Obama?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up Hannity. I said, "Find a state that doesn't have a requirement that you must have ID to register" and you say "New Jersey" -- which you admit HAS a requirement that you must show ID -- and I am "wrong?" What world do you live in? Then your excuse is that poll workers are too stupid to match a name with the ID -- or that the Democratic and Republican poll workers are in cahoots to allow anyone to vote? Wow, this is some conspiracy -- but it still demonstrates that you are the one who is completely wrong about the law. Go back to counting black helicopters.

Let us know when you become the least bit relevant, fringe-boy.

Which ones? (Answer: no they can't)