Max Fischer

Start building your bunkers, Boys! (Do you take medication for your paranoia or do you just let it ride? Is it a soft, warm psychosis that blocks out reality or is a painful, burning sensation? I know Rush takes Oxycontin, does that help?)

This is thread is good evidence why the GOP is where is today. It's just SHOCKING that a president could take a second look at a decision, review the evidence and arguments and move in a different direction. I sympathize that you are smothered in rigid orthodoxy (as are those on the fringe left) and understand that you are afraid great majority Americans (made up of right and left leaning moderates) will support Obama's thoughtful pragmatic decisions, but you may want to take a good look around and ask yourself, "Am I simply being a hopeless, ideological penis?"

Oh, yeah, that's so much different . . .

Don't you all realize this is because America hates white guys? I mean, who is looking out for them? It's important to have someone to blame for (place your problem/issue here).

Damn you, President Obama! Damn you for keeping your promise to act pragmatically! Only a true leader will do on Thursday what they said they would do on Tuesday, no matter what happens on Wednesday! Oh, how will America survive a leader who uses pragmatism to arrive at a correct decision?

In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten, then he who continues the attack wins. -- Ulysses S. Grant

Why thank you. So, who DID you vote for in 2008?

The problem is that three of the scenarios don't call for the GOP to do anything but wait for the Democrats to screw up. There is no call to arms, a policy or GOP platform based on an idea or principle. All may lead to a "comeback" that may prove temporary at best. 1) Overreach: I think this the most likely scenario, that is why, as a Democrat, I like to see Obama put the brakes on the twin morons: Reid and Pelosi. See: Obama's attempt to defuse the torture issue (and Pelosi's inability to do/say anything right). As a Dem, I hope the Warner part of the Party in Congress start to step up more to manage the economy and foreign policy. 2) Checks and balances: this is basically the same as #1. Unfortunately for the GOP, it is much more likely the Democrats increase their Senate majority in 2010 and the 2012 prospects don't look much better. The GOP is more likely to win a few seats in the House but unless the GOP starts taking state legislatures and state houses (not all that likely) the 2012 redistricting process may solidify 2008 Dem gains. Ironically, the best shot for Checks & Balances may be to take our Obama in 2012. 3) Crisis breeds renewal: this is unfortunate wishful thinking, but more important, something the GOP cannot control. 4) Talent senses opportunity: Unfortunately for the GOP most of the "talent" he describes are much more moderate and pragmatic than Rush, Cheney and base want as leaders. Ridge didn't run because chances are he would not win the primary (sad), Cantor is getting drilled for not talking about social conservative issues, Jeb has an unfortunate last name and Jack Kemp just died. The other irony is that most of the "good opportunities" in 2010 are led by moderate Republicans. Hmmmmm. 5) The Republican Party is the de facto Libertarian Party. He may say but that doesn't mean that people think this is so. Republicans may THINK their libertarians but libertarians don't necessarily think their Republicans. This is a "Sit back and wait for Democrats to screw up plan," not a plan to deal with taxes, immigration, abortion, foreign policy, the budget, social security, medicare and a host of issues that a majority of public doesn't agree with GOP.

You guys are funny. Pathetic, but funny.

Um, so after the first game the Bills can keep the no-huddle, spread offense a secret for the rest of the season? Gonna bring the Watergate Plumbers to erase each game tape?

How do they measure "POA" stats?

Not to set off a firestorm, but have you tested her for ADD? I'm not one to hand out drugs to every kid who doesn't perform well but we resisted with our intelligent and unfocused second daughter in 6th grade and the results are pretty remarkable. She was a C and C+ student before and A-student now. Same kid, same personality, same kind of craziness but she now focuses in class and on her work. It certainly doesn't work for every kid but I'm glad we tried that before putting her in a very expensive private school.

Good Lord, get over it. Whitner only gets sh*t because he's a first-rounder. He may not be a superstar but he's a very solid player and will start every game he's healthy. Get over your first-round expectations and be thankful we don't have worry about his position.

What does he know? At about 9PM this board declared this the "Worst Draft Ever."

At least that's the way I see it. Yes, rookies all, but why not?

Drafted three upgraded starters. I'd say that's pretty good. B+

Later. People who react like this are pathetic. Most people couldn't even name 75% of the draftees until a few weeks ago. Every frickin' year people go nuts when we don't take so-and-so who usually turns out to be bust anyway. People really need a life. Take a chill and see what happens.

Please read your history before equating the Nazi's with socialism.

I read the book with much anticipation. However, while it was "original" and somewhat thought provoking, I was turned off by its own self-importance. By the end I didn't really care about any of the characters and thought Dr. Manhattan was right - just go ahead and wipe everyone out, what difference does it make? While the movie certainly looks impressive and true to the book, it also seeavyms to have the same heavy dose of self-importance. I get the feeling I'll leave the theater the same way I felt about the book. "Kinda cool, feast for the eyes, large serving of ideas but little pay-off in the end."

Dude, you are deranged. The links say what Wiki says that Steele and the GOP made up the whole "racial" incident. That was my point. What the !@#$ is yours?

Seriously, your source is Wikipedia????? That's awesome. Dude, do you even know how to use the internet? I found these in 30 seconds. Many articles cited here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200511210004 http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=11150 http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=428&sid=622881 Clean-up quote noted here: http://www.americablog.com/2005/11/gov-ehr...-steele-in.html You'll also note that the Washington Times and other rags reported the GOP version of events but never ran a correction of the story. I know, weird. Need anything else?

Nice try. There are always idiots on both sides who say dumb things but to characterize Steele as under some kind of organized racial campaign against him is complete BS. Nearly all the criticism had to do with his politics and lack of ideas and the rest of taken out context. To launch racial attacks on him in Maryland makes little political sense. In the end, it was Steele who was unmasked as playing the race card and he paid the price for making up stories. Matter of fact, Steele never "denied" he was "pelted" with oreos -- he made up the story and was caught in a gross lie about the non-incident. On that story alone Steele loses a great deal of credibility. Steele did not succeed in Maryland because he was a black Republican (in a heavily black state), it was because he's a one-note right-wing Republican in a Democratic state. The DSCC thing was not racial -- that was a rouge staffer who did the credit card thing and was justly fired and prosecuted. The New York Sun is a rag -- there was no formal connection the Democrats. Just some random idiot. And Cardin's low-level staffer was a nut-job who deserved to be fired and in no way was indicative of the campaign itself. To do otherwise would be political suicide.

Comrade VABills, how do you prove something didn't happen? How about proving it actually did happen and then posting why you don't hear these "stories" anymore? (You may use "media conspiracy" but that's just another cop out). I'll give you a head-start. Let's try the Steele accusation that a debate audience "pelted him with oreos." (You know, dark on the outside, white on the inside). That was his most famous story of racial hatred. After no one --- that is, nobody, no Republicans, non partisans or any media, left or right -- witnessed this overt and heinous attack -- Steele changed the story to the attackers "rolled oreos at his feet." You see in the original story Steele "slightly" exaggerated when he say dozens of oreos were launched at him -- and since no one saw this hail storm of cookies it was changed to rolled along the floor, so people wouldn't have seen it. Too bad no one saw this either - including the cleaning staff who never saw evidence of cookies. After this simple investigation Steele and his people never brought up the story again. Got any more?

You're not lying you just want to believe information that fits your narrow world view. We don't expect you to be swayed by the facts of the case you cite or accept that the "stories" are written by Republican party insiders. Look, as a GOP backer I can understand that you're uncomfortable with race -- but guess what? Steele is a black man in a party that is, statistically, almost unanimously white (not one congressional member, governor, or major statewide elected official -- not one). By the simple nature of that fact wouldn't that lead to questions about minority attitudes toward Republicans and vice-versa? Are you seriously suggesting that Steele's election to one of the two major political parties following Obama's election shouldn't/doesn't logically lead to an examination of the impact of his race? Why can't you accept the notion that the GOP will almost certainly ask itself the basic question: can our party survive without some significant "minority" (aka black and latino) support and how Steele may do that? Did it occur to you why Steele may have been elected despite not having sufficient conservative credentials and not exactly the traditional face of his Party? My issue with Steele is not that he's black (good for him), it's that he doesn't have a second gear - there's no there there. He makes a great first impression, he's a good communicator but anyone who knows his history will tell you that he lacks vision and leadership skills. In other words, what you see is what you get - there is nothing below the surface, there's never a Second Act. I do think he's the best choice of the lot - and the GOP averted disaster by electing the SC guy. Moreover, I think Steele will do well for the next few months (First Act) but don't expect much else in the Second Round of interviews. In other words, he's a great salesman but can't deliver the product.

No, its that, ironically, the GOP and backers like you use racial politics as weapon as often as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If you were dull witted and really believed that charge then fine, but are you really chargin Dems of racism for criticizing a black Republican? Oh my God. Democrats criticizing a Republican!!!! When will the racism end? Steele tried this thinly-veiled strategy in Maryland and he got laughed at and soundly defeated. Dude, you are using partisan hack racial politics tactics: Dems elected Obama because he's black, criticize Steele because he's black? Get a grip. You can just hear it: those who voted for Obama are only trying to disguise the fact they are guilt-ridden passive-aggressive racists. Ingenious. Who would really think that he was best candidate for president?