Chilly

I had it the other day and me and my roommate thought it was pretty damn good. Better then the usual we get in Texas, natty ice and steel reserve.

No way McCain does that. Despite being labeled as a moderate, he's still far too right on social issues for the democrats to nominate him. Also remember that the nomination process produces not the most moderate candidates, but the candidates who the hardcore partisan's want. That's gonna be Hillary if she runs.

At least its not like those town hall meetings. "I'm very happy to have you as our president"

I heard about this a while ago.

maybe to teach him?

Anyone else use gmail? If so, whats is your login name? Google talk is fun in gmail.

But I'm damn glad that they do.

Carl Mauck does though.

Moland Springs? I mean, MOLAND? What kind of name is that! Moland springs... lol.

Yeah, because its all those damn liberals that are making this a huge issue. O wai, not one liberal congressman has been quoted in the media from all of the stories I've read. You're placing the blame here in the wrong spot, oh holy one. Its the media thats making this a big issue.

I, actually, don't have the expertise to criticise them on this situation, and my only criticism is that I wouldn't trust a DoD report about the DoD.

check the sticky

Of course, the Department of Defense isn't going to say anything bad about their job either, less they make their loyal commander in chief, the President, look bad. Which was pretty much my point - these responses, without an independent investigation, mean nothing.

We have a winner. I agree 100% with both of these points.

Oh I agree its not always black and white. When I made that statement, I was more or less talking about the same type of people JSP was referring to.

The Rasmussen poll has a definite disparity between what I was asking and what they were reporting. And I doubt anyone in congress would disagree either. The real issue with this whole situation has been if the President should be allowed to expand his power to the point of authorizing the wiretaps WITHOUT a warrant. Check out the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll at http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm The issue really isn't what he is doing, but should he get warrants for doing so. If you saw any of Alberto Gonzales' presentation to congress on the issue, this is mainly what the leaders of congress and their constituents are concerned about in this issue. It isn't exactly the issue of wiretapping persay, as it is not receiving the warrants for it.

One of the things that I find absurd about this administration's PR team is their insistance on the use of Orwellian-like tactics as their trump card. I also find it absurd that people actually fall for it. There has been a recent example of the Bush administration doing exactly this in their defense of the whole wiretapping incident. The PR campaign wasn't going exactly well for them, and a good majority of people thought that the Bush administration was wrong for not getting warrants. And now comes the trump card: fear. The Bush campaign, attempting to boost its PR campaign with the wiretaps, decides to tell the country about a 2002 plot to destroy the US Bank Tower (or, as Bush referred it to by its old name to keep it in line with the rhetoric, the Liberty tower). The terrorist plot that they foiled was so dangerous and imminent that they never even informed the mayor or the local city government. And then they never even had the courtesy of informing the mayor before announcing it on national tv. This isn't to suggest that you can't use examples of when it was useful, but don't use one specific incident to drive an Orwellian-like fear feeling to get your point acrossed. I know this will never happen, but I dream of there being a coherent argument, with facts and examples to back it up. This is the appropriate way to use the 2002 terrorist attack. Instead, this administration uses it as a distraction from all of the other things. "We foiled 2002. Now let us do whatever we want, otherwise you'll get attacked again". Neither Democrats nor Republicans, as well as any other party once they got into power, will really truly do that. I do like how all the Republican's say that the Democrats don't have a coherent National Security plan and is the party of big government, while the Republicans not only fail to coherently put together a compelling reason to have warrantless system, but also want expanded Presidential authority (aka big government, what they are against). I think that its pathetic that the Democrats are so disorganzied that they will not be able to take advantage of this and use it to their advantage. I also think its not completely the political party's fault that politics is done with way. A big part of the blame falls squarely on the electorate for allowing emotional responses like this to overtake their senses. Unfortunately, its all too common to have this happen. If it didn't work, political strategists wouldn't use it. Anyway, enough of my long ass rant about different things. Its the system, and we're stuck with it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/13/...in1308008.shtml The republican congress doesn't think so.

I'd much rather if we didn't have to use a morning after pill, or ever have to have an abortion, but its just not realistic to expect people to stop having sex or expect sick freaks to stop raping.

It'd be nice of people weren't dumb. But they are. And these stupid people need the morning-after pill. Besides, I'd assume you'd rather have the burden of a morning after pill then the burden of an unwanted child on society.

From the way you are talking it must be Benny Benassi - Satisfaction. If anyone wants to hear a good remix of this song, check out the remix with 50 Cent - In Da Club. They tie together perfectly, its crazy.

You guys are all silly bears.

Yahoo has the same service that's non flashed based at tv.yahoo.com If you are just trying to find out what movies are on, I like zap2it's service. http://tvlistings2.zap2it.com/grid.asp?partner_id=national

He's saying don't keep either.

u2 sux