Max Fischer

You either don't get or you're just playing games.

You mean if the GOP didn't have their feelings hurt they would have done the right thing for America? Now that's political courage. Let's hope that this time only sticks and stones can hurt them. Quick civics lesson: the executive branch (i.e. the president). Treasury to be more specific. Any number of agencies within.

Ah, so I see you are now changing the debate. Just admit that you were wrong about Obama and the GOP and we can move to the next topic.

Yes they did. That's a fact. What the GOP and McCain failed to do was hold up their end of the deal. They failed to do what you so erroneously accused Obama: they lost control of their members and couldn't get the job done. It'll be easier for you when you accept the truth.

Uh, what? In the morning, McCain and the House GOP leaders endorse the plan and McCain declares "Mission Accomplished." Democrats put up their votes. i.e., they hold up their end of the deal. GOP doesn't deliver their part of the deal. Markets fall 777 points. -- In fact, Obama and the Democrats "controlled" their party and McCain did not. It's really very simple. -- Obama did not put in "poison pills" and the GOP leaders (including McCain) signed off on the bill AS IS. I know you want it to be otherwise but you need to accept the facts.

Increasing nervousness that it would fail drove down the markets. There was widespread speculation that the votes weren't there. News from the caucus room travels fast.

So, Obama is the Wall Street's guy AND a Marxist? This is a weird election. On the other hand, we need this bill but the GOP gets a pass for caving to a vocal, uninformed minority?

Marxism! Man, bringing out the big guns. Impressive. I'll be shaking when you start calling me a "Communist." Public sector? No. I'm swimming in good ol' American Capitalism. In fact, I'm pretty sure I love the system more than you. If you stop sniffing the glue long enough you'll see the world isn't so simplistically black & white.

So says the neoconservative author. Yeah, lots of credibility there.

You brought up Hitler, Lenin AND socialism. Congratulations, you hit the loser trifecta. Though not surprising coming from a guy who quotes Ann Coulter. Just what we expect from you: more knee-jerk, stereotypical, propagandist nonsense. Newsflash: because someone may gag at the thought of Coulter and Limbaugh doesn't make them "far left" or socialist. Just a middle of the road citizen who can think for themselves. Please stay out there on the fringe so you won't infect the rest of the nation.

Ann Coulter? Nice. You really are out there holding onto the end of the fringe.

Let's not let a few zeros get in the way of good propaganda.

Wow. Even for an internet message board, the demonstrated low-level of social and political sophistication is astounding. It's amazing how quickly many of you will abandon your so-called principles to win an internet debate. Its a race to the bottom to see how irrelevant you can be.

Wish I can say the same for your anti-democratic views. Downright frightening. Do yourself a favor and reconsider your unAmerican stance on ballot access.

Barr is on the ballot. At least according to the Libertarian Party.

He's acting the part, Fringe-Boy.

I think Lynch is much better but Jackson has a quick burst and doesn't hesitate -- which is a bit of an advantage with the horrible run blocking. Moreover, I don't think Jackson could carry the load like Lynch does.

Uh, what? Way to go,Sherlock. Why do you have to be a such a dick? So, I'm an "idiot" because I believe that candidates should appear on a ballot despite bureaucratic technicalities? I have said, repeatedly, in many ways, NO candidate, especially those nationally recognized, should be removed from the ballot for technical reasons because I believe (as do most Americans) that we should not disenfranchise voters for a mere technicality. It a very simple concept that few beyond the fringe of society can't understand. What are yousmoking? You brought up of Barr, I didn't. I think he should be on the ballot, so what's the problem? Why do you have a problem with the notion that ALL established candidates should have ballot access and the courts should rule to have them on despite technicalities. Why do you and the other irrelevant idiots have such a problem with simple democracy? So, which is it? Do you believe recognized candidates should or should not appear on the ballot of every state despite arbitrary technicalities?

DC Tom, don't use the lazy tactic of putting words in my mouth. Where did I say - or even imply - it was fair to have Barr kicked off the ballot in Texas? And, if indeed, Barr is off for the same violation then he should be on the ballot.

Come on. You may have issues with Biden but you have to admit has forgotten more about foreign policy than nearly any president over the past 50 years (sans Nixon) even knew coming into office. You can even argue Biden knows as much and possible more than McCain.

Apparently Barr is on the ballot because he was nominated sooner.

You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel to come up with something that makes sense. You failed. "Fair" is a pretty easy definition and you still don't get it. Few but the most fringe elements agree with you. Do yourself a favor and stop defending the indefensible -- you'll simply embarrass yourself.

But if he was "nominated" much earlier why couldn't they get the papers filed in Texas?

Fine with me. Why isn't Barr on the ballot?

I never addressed that question -- and if you read this thread you will clearly see I never said any such thing. But now that you bring it up -- yes, I think Barr and the Libertarians should be on the ballot. I don't know the circumstances as to why he's not.