Reagan's face on US money?

[Don't panic]

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
(http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm)

[dopefiend]

Cool, hehe.

[FatTony]

After firing the air traffic controller, they rename an airport after him.

After ballooning the national deficit and debt, they want to put him on our currency.

Next thing you know, when AIDS is cured, they'll name the drug that does it after him.

[Thomas Veil]

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
(http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm)
I'm going to be sick to my stomach.

Figures one of the jokers behind it would be Mitch McConnell, the fish-lipped senator who tried so hard to get Bill Clinton impeached.

I agree completely with FatTony. Maybe they could introduce a million dollar bill, something almost nobody would be able to use, and put Reagan on that.

Or, if you're in a more impish and ironic frame of mind, put Reagan's picture on food stamp coupons.

(BTW, a Marvel No-Prize goes to the first person who can identify Don't panic's quote, above.)

[mactastic]

We could rename Alzheimers after him. "I'm sorry, but you have Ronald Reagans disease."

Or perhaps we could rename the SOA after Reagan.

Or we could build the largest federal building yet and name it after him in homage.

[Sayhey]

(BTW, a Marvel No-Prize goes to the first person who can identify Don't panic's quote, above.)

That would be chief attorney for the Army, Joseph Welch, at the Senate McCarthy hearings. Do I win the No-Prize?

[Thomas Veil]

That would be chief attorney for the Army, Joseph Welch, at the Senate McCarthy hearings. Do I win the No-Prize?
Yup. I didn't think anyone would get it so fast!

[IJ Reilly]

we could build the largest federal building yet and name it after him in homage.

Too late!

http://www.pcfandp.com/a/p/8842/1.html

[Thomas Veil]

Here's McConnell's web e-mail contact form: http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm

Here's Rohrabacher's e-mail address: Dana@mail.house.gov

Let's let 'em know what we think of this idea. Probably won't help, but at least we'll know we tried.

And don't forget to contact your senators and representative as well.

[wowser]

This is ridiculous! I mean, if your gonna get his face on a note, at least make it the 100 dollar bill, not the 10. That way, only rich people who benefitted from his econimic policies would see him.

[D0ct0rteeth]

Thank God there is nothing serious going on like a war and social programs such as education, social security and health care are all completely flawless :) I was afraid this was a waste of time.

Also.. Hamiltion was only a revolutionary war hero, the founder of the Treasury, chose Washington DC as the site of the capitol, and an architect of our take on the capitalist system... of course an actor who traded missles for hostages from CA is a better choice.

- Doc

[mactastic]

Too late!

http://www.pcfandp.com/a/p/8842/1.html

It could be bigger... :p

[Don't panic]

I'm going to be sick to my stomach.


my feeling exactly.

I actually choked on my coffee when I first read it. missed my PB by an inch.

[zimv20]

i might be coming around in support of this idea. this country is so money-focused these days, i think it's appropriate to start replacing founding fathers images w/ those of modern day presidents, especially those for whom economic concerns, whether running huge deficits, adding to the welfare rolls, catering to big business and the rich, or greatly increasing the cost of living were goals and/or accomplishments.

whereas money featuring the founding fathers represents freedom, the new bills and coins could represent profit.

for starters, let's get reagan and gw bush all over the currency asap.

[takao]

i think waiting would be a good idea....perhaps in 5 yearsyou don't want to have reagan anymore on the bill
was he really that good that you have to look at his face everytime you pay something ?

[Frohickey]

(BTW, a Marvel No-Prize goes to the first person who can identify Don't panic's quote, above.)

What Joseph Nye Welch's said to Senator Joseph McCarthy?

(Gotta phrase it in the form of a question, don't cha know?) :D

[blackfox]

Perhaps Reagan should be put on the $1 bill...because with inflation, that will be the first to become relatively worthless...so his placement could be a reminder that he fights inflation from beyond the grave... ;)
(the penny might work also)

[Frohickey]

I think its a bad idea to have Ronald Reagan replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill.

Alexander Hamilton is a Founding Father, that makes him bigger than a mere President.

If Ronald Reagan is going to replace anyone's portrait in US currency, it should either be in the $1 coin (Sacajawea), or dime (FDR).

[Neserk]

I think a president should have to be dead for 100 years before his/her face goes on money!

[zimv20]

i've decided that each president should get their own bill, the denomination of which is which president they were. so that would put reagan on the $40 bill.

we wouldn't have to replace the singles, and all americans would get better at arithmetic.

[Neserk]

Speaking of bills... who stiill uses them? I prefer a Visa Check Card!

[Mike Teezie]

Reagan on the $10 bill? Why?

Hoperfully this silly idea will blow over in a few days. As soon as Reagan's out of the news, the idea will fade out. The average news channel's coverage attention lasts what, 7-10 days?

That is, of course, excluding celeb sex scandals and/or murders.

[Savage Henry]

Don't worry, the day you guys get Reagan on the $10, we'll see Keith Moon on our £20.

It'll never happen. It's all trying to put the Republicans on the front page for positive reasons.

[wowser]

I hear Maggie Thatcher is going to be on the new £10 pound note. They said "Who the hell is this Charles Darwin fella? Let's get that mad old bat on there!"

[Voltron]

I think its a bad idea to have Ronald Reagan replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill.

Alexander Hamilton is a Founding Father, that makes him bigger than a mere President.

If Ronald Reagan is going to replace anyone's portrait in US currency, it should either be in the $1 coin (Sacajawea), or dime (FDR).
$1 coin works for me.

[Voltron]

I think a president should have to be dead for 100 years before his/her face goes on money!
It'll take 100 years to get this thing to pass.

[krimson]

you mean this isn't real?
http://i.cnn.net/money/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/reagan_10_x_large.jpg

[Thomas Veil]

What Joseph Nye Welch's said to Senator Joseph McCarthy?

(Gotta phrase it in the form of a question, don't cha know?) :D
Sorry, Sayhey already got it. :D But it's nice to know we have folks here with a strong sense of modern history.

As far as the Reagan/money issue goes, this is the very reason I started the "heroization" thread: in the emotion of the moment, Congress is going to go off half-cocked and do all kinds of things to honor him.

I HATE it when those guys get carried away like that, when emotions are still running high. The last time that happened, we got The Patriot Act.

[Thomas Veil]

you mean this isn't real?


http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/reaganbill.jpg

NOW it is.

[zimv20]

I HATE it when those guys get carried away like that, when emotions are still running high. The last time that happened, we got The Patriot Act.
and "freedom fries"

[Taft]

I think its a bad idea to have Ronald Reagan replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill.

Alexander Hamilton is a Founding Father, that makes him bigger than a mere President.

If Ronald Reagan is going to replace anyone's portrait in US currency, it should either be in the $1 coin (Sacajawea), or dime (FDR).

Sacajawea probably won't happen. The PC people would have a fit.

I think replacing FDR is a horrible idea. He was instrumental to the creation of a polio vaccine, created the march of dimes, led our country successfully through WWII, and turned around the economy of the great depression with the New Deal. Despite the "revisionists" (I hate that word, but the right--*ahem* Coulter are you listenin?-- love to use it, so I will too) trying to discredit the policies of the New Deal in terms of their effect on the economy, the New Deal brought the country into a completely new economy which flourished for generations afterwords. Though I can understand why a libertarian such as yourself might not like those policies...

Anyway, I think Reagan's contributions as a whole pale in comparison to FDR's.

Taft

[Frohickey]

I think replacing FDR is a horrible idea. He was instrumental to the creation of a polio vaccine, created the march of dimes, led our country successfully through WWII, and turned around the economy of the great depression with the New Deal.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.

He promised:

1. That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1400.00 of their annual incomes into the program.
3. That the money the participants elected to put into the Proram would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
4. That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to dund Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program and,
5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month--and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away", you may be interested in the following:

1. Which political party took SS from the independent "trust" fund and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Lyndon Johnson and the Demoratically-controlled House and Senate.

2. Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for SS withholding?

The Democratic Party.

3. Which Political Party started taxing SS annuities?

The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

4. Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI payments. They have NEVER paid a dime into it.

Then after doing all this lying and theiving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the REPUBLICANS want to take your Social Security away.

[Taft]

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.

He promised:

1. That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1400.00 of their annual incomes into the program.
3. That the money the participants elected to put into the Proram would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
4. That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to dund Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program and,
5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month--and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away", you may be interested in the following:

1. Which political party took SS from the independent "trust" fund and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Lyndon Johnson and the Demoratically-controlled House and Senate.

2. Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for SS withholding?

The Democratic Party.

3. Which Political Party started taxing SS annuities?

The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

4. Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI payments. They have NEVER paid a dime into it.

Then after doing all this lying and theiving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the REPUBLICANS want to take your Social Security away.


While I won't comment on the validity of your statements regarding all the democratic presidents/figures AFTER Roosevelt, I have a hard time understanding how you pin all that on FDR.

Yes, FDR created the Social Security program. But as you yourself stated, he envisioned a program with limited applicability. You can't fault him for the occurances AFTER he left office. I think he deserves to be on the dime.

Not that he was perfect, though. The internment of Japanese-Americans happened on his watch...

Taft

[Sayhey]

As far as the Reagan/money issue goes, this is the very reason I started the "heroization" thread: in the emotion of the moment, Congress is going to go off half-cocked and do all kinds of things to honor him.

I HATE it when those guys get carried away like that, when emotions are still running high. The last time that happened, we got The Patriot Act.

Perhaps Congress should pass legislation that prohibits the honoring of an individual in this way until, say, twenty years after their death. Then we might have a slightly better perspective on their legacy. As Frohickey proves, that wouldn't prevent everyone from being totally off base in their assessment, but it would help. I understand Reagan signed a similar measure regarding monuments in DC. If we want to really honor Reagan, we should follow the wishes of Nancy and worked to advance stem cell research to help the millions of victims of Alzheimer's Disease. A bipartisan bill with Reagan's name attached to it would fly through Congress - or at least it should.

By the way, FDR lead this nation in its darkest days since the civil war. Through his leadership, not only was the US instrumental in helping eliminate the danger of fascism and Japanese militarism, but he also laid the basis for the modern democratic capitalist state. Saving the system in the US from the totalitarian fate of so many other nations of the period. What a bum!

edit: I see takao first introduced the idea of a waiting period. Good idea! :p

[Frohickey]

Economists have already gone though FDR's policies and have determined that the incessant meddling in the economy actually caused a prolonging of the Depression.

How FDR Made the Depression Worse (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=258&sortorder=authorlast)
FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (http://www.bookfinder.us/review6/0761501657.html)

[IJ Reilly]

A standard rule of thumb for historical evaluation is 50 years. It's difficult to put the historical importance of a person, place or thing in a proper perspective until at least 50 years have passed. This is probably too long in the case of presidents, about whom the historical scholarship builds up more quickly, but it's certainly the conventional approach to wait for events to seep in for a respectable period of time before trying to make judgments about their importance. I think a lot of what we're hearing right now about Ronald Reagan's importance is related to his influence on the restructuring of the Republican Party. While that's certainly an event of significance to party operatives, its importance to US history is not so clear.

[IJ Reilly]

Economists have already gone though FDR's policies and have determined that the incessant meddling in the economy actually caused a prolonging of the Depression.

You mean all of them? (As he cites two libertarians...)

[numediaman]

You mean all of them? (As he cites two libertarians...)

Pretty amazing revisionism, huh?

Below: Oliphant keeps drawing Bush smaller and smaller and smaller . . .

[Sayhey]

You mean all of them? (As he cites two libertarians...)

It would be funny except that not only is Frohickey dead serious, but it looks like there maybe some folks in this administration that are from the same school of thought. What happens to Social Security if Bush is reelected? Scary thought.

[Taft]

You mean all of them? (As he cites two libertarians...)

Exactly.

*Shock* *Amazement* Someone from the Mises Institute thinks liberal economic policies are bad!?!?!?!? Quick, someone alert the media!

Taft

[mactastic]

Let's just put Reagan's face on all the money, penny on up. Also let's rename all federal buildings after him posthaste. That way we will be reminded how Reagan spent like a drunken sailor, as well as expanded the federal government. :eek: :D :p

[wwworry]

Economists have already gone though FDR's policies and have determined that the incessant meddling in the economy actually caused a prolonging of the Depression.

How FDR Made the Depression Worse (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=258&sortorder=authorlast)
FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (http://www.bookfinder.us/review6/0761501657.html)


Those scientists are probably chummy with the 2% of scientists that think global warming is not happening. If Hoover had won re-election there probably would have been a lot of blood shed, a lot more dedicated communists and a lot more starvation in this country.

Hooverville?
Hoover Flag?

Lesson: You can always find a crackpot scientist or economist if you look hard enough.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/dustbowl/peopleevents/pandeAMEX05.html

The imbalance between the rich and the poor, with 0.1 percent of society earning the same total income as 42 percent, combined with production of more and more goods and rising personal debt, could not be sustained. On Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed, triggering the Great Depression, the worst economic collapse in the history of the modern industrial world. It spread from the United States to the rest of the world, lasting from the end of 1929 until the early 1940s. With banks failing and businesses closing, more than 15 million Americans (one-quarter of the workforce) became unemployed.

President Herbert Hoover, underestimating the seriousness of the crisis, called it "a passing incident in our national lives," and assured Americans that it would be over in 60 days. A strong believer in rugged individualism, Hoover did not think the federal government should offer relief to the poverty-stricken population. Focusing on a trickle-down economic program to help finance businesses and banks, Hoover met with resistance from business executives who preferred to lay off workers. Blamed by many for the Great Depression, Hoover was widely ridiculed: an empty pocket turned inside out was called a "Hoover flag;" the decrepit shantytowns springing up around the country were called "Hoovervilles." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the rich governor from New York, offered Americans a New Deal, and was elected in a landslide victory in 1932. He took quick action to attack the Depression, declaring a four-day bank holiday, during which Congress passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act to stabilize the banking system. During the first 100 days of his administration, Roosevelt laid the groundwork for his New Deal remedies that would rescue the country from the depths of despair.

[IJ Reilly]

Lesson: You can always find a crackpot scientist or economist if you look hard enough.

"If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion." --George Bernard Shaw

[Voltron]

Those scientists are probably chummy with the 2% of scientists that think global warming is not happening. If Hoover had won re-election there probably would have been a lot of blood shed, a lot more dedicated communists and a lot more starvation in this country.

Hooverville?
Hoover Flag?

Lesson: You can always find a crackpot scientist or economist if you look hard enough.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/dustbowl/peopleevents/pandeAMEX05.html
Aren't those the same scientist that 20-30 years ago were warning us about the next ice age?

[wwworry]

Aren't those the same scientist that 20-30 years ago were warning us about the next ice age?
98% of climatologists aren't good enough for you?

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.

You are that frog.

[Voltron]

Let's just put Reagan's face on all the money, penny on up. Also let's rename all federal buildings after him posthaste. That way we will be reminded how Reagan spent like a drunken sailor, as well as expanded the federal government. :eek: :D :p
Unlike the Democrats

BANNING THAT EVIL BERMUDA COMPANY

It's called the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program, and it's run by Accenture LLP, a U.S. Company who's parent company is registered in Bermuda. Accenture is based in Virginia. Accenture has a contract to provide security services to the U.S. Government. Some Democrats in Congress are waging a successful campaign to have the law changed and that contract cancelled ... all because Accenture's parent company is incorporated in Bermuda.

So ... why is this company incorporated in Bermuda? Not one out of ten Americans really understands. It's because of our tax laws. Our draconian corporate tax regulations actually force companies out of this country for their own fiscal health.

We'll illustrate this by considering a fictional consulting company called BoortzCorp. BoortzCorp does business in the United States and seven European countries providing deprogramming services for government officials suffering from OCCD (Obsessive Compulsive Compassion Disorder). We'll consider two scenarios; one where BoortzCorp is incorporated in the United States, the other where BoortzCorp is based in Bermuda.

BoortzCorp, U.S. Since BoortzCorp is a U.S. corporation federal tax regulations will require BoortzCorp to pay federal corporate income taxes on every single penny it earns. It doesn't matter whether that money is earned in the U.S. or not. If BoortzCorp earns $15 Million in Belgium it will not only have to pay whatever taxes are due on those earnings in Belgium, but in the United States as well. Now the U.S. tax laws will allow a credit to BoortzCorp in the amount of the taxes paid to Belgium, but since U.S. corporate income taxes are generally higher than most other nations, there will be additional taxes due to Washington. In some enlightened foreign countries there are no corporate income taxes at all. In that case, the U.S. collects the full amount.

BoortzCorp Bermuda. The corporate management of BoortzCorp is getting a bit tired of paying income taxes to the feds on earnings of overseas subsidiaries. BoortzCorp could expand its business and hire additional people if the earnings could be reduced by lowering the tax burden. So BoortzCorp reincorporates in Bermuda. The home office stays in the U.S., as do all but about five employees. But now the tax laws are different. The BoortzCorp subsidiary operating in the United States will pay corporate income taxes to the U.S. government on earnings made in the U.S. The BoortzCorp operation in Belgium, however, will pay income taxes on earnings realized in Belgium, but will owe nothing to the U.S. government for those earnings. That will leave BoortzCorp with additional cash that can be used to hire additional people, expand the business, or pay dividends to shareholders, many of whom, by the way, live in the United States.

So ... if BoortzCorp makes the decision to incorporate to Bermuda, does this make BoortzCorp evil? What has gone to Bermuda? Virtually nothing, just a set of incorporation documents and five administrative employees. Everything else is exactly as it was. Everything, that is, except that now BoortzCorp isn't paying taxes to the U.S. government on earnings from operations overseas. Does it make anything other than good sense for BoortzCorp to make the move offshore?

Let's think about foreign corporations doing business in the U.S. Let's say there is a German company, KrautCorp, that does exactly the same type of work that BoortzCorp does. KrautCorp operates in the United States. BoortzCorp U.S. operates in Germany. KrautCorp will pay taxes to the U.S. government on earnings realized in the U.S., but not on earnings realized in Germany. BoortzCorp will pay taxes to the German government on earnings realized there, but will also pay taxes on its German earnings to the U.S. government. Since the tax burden to Boortz Corp U.S. is higher, KrautCorp has a competitive advantage. It can undercut BoortzCorp prices and still earn exactly the same profit. In other words, the U.S. corporate tax laws give a competitive advantage to foreign corporations. Now that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

So why are Democrats attacking Accenture, and why are Republicans once again caving in? Because it's good politics. As I said, you can't find one out of ten Americans who understand the tax picture I outlined above. When Democrats start hyperventilating about corporations moving overseas to avoid taxes, they never seem to mention that the only taxes that will be avoided are taxes on overseas earnings. U.S. voters listen to the rantings and ravings of the Democrats and decide that these corporations are evil and should be punished. If a Republican disagrees with the Democrats' campaign to punish the corporation they are condemned for putting the interests of their corporate friends above the needs of the people. Since the people don't have a clue what's really going on, the charge sticks.

So .. now we have the Democrats in the House, who understand this situation completely, making political points with their ignorant constituents. Republicans are going along because they know that the voters are as dumb as cypress knees on this issue, and they don't want to be painted as favoring "big business" over the American people.


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[Voltron]

98% of climatologists aren't good enough for you?

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.

You are that frog.
guess this is one of the 2%

Global Warming
Does it Exist?
If so, is it Man- or Sun-made?
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/solactivity.jpg

Graph of solar activity versus climate
Global warming -- the gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- seems to be accepted by many scientists and people now as fact. Generally, this warming is attributed to the increase of green-house gases in the Earth's upper atmosphere.

However, some solar scientists are considering whether the warming exists at all. And, if it does, might it be caused, wholely or in part, by a periodic but small increase in the Sun's energy output. An increase of just 0.2% in the solar output could have the same affect as doubling the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.



This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.

The global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and population reduction advocates. The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is eviromentally helpful.

The link above will take you to the paper Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and a petition that will let you participate in this important project.


http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p31.htm
ok lets see if 17,000 is = to 2% of all climatologiests then there must be 850,000 climatologists in this world for your statement saying that 98% of all climatologists think global warming is real to be true. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

98% of climatologists aren't good enough for you?

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.

You are that frog.

Having used this analogy myself, I've been told by people who know a thing our two about biology that a frog will not in fact allow itself to be cooked by gradual heating. Eventually the frog will get the point and jump out of the pot. The moral of the story, I suppose, is that frogs are smarter than some people.

[wwworry]

Access to Energy is a pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise monthly newsletter

located in beautiful nowheresville
http://imgi.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage?MAPData=1eMOofhyzy1JICzecGP_ZRP3wwG.VmrxJPmlumqm68ClX7AFAZ1m1f6xAYuCVEbVLTpyfnouL7vL.cYgOC9 m_LwW7uizlTi.c3EdO5B5uWcJfG1NyQ94ubdfDIvoVo_AuLbB7tfxsLI-

[mactastic]

Unlike the Democrats

Ah but Democrats aren't scheming to have their party's deity on everything now, are they? Slight difference there...

[Thomas Veil]

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Boortz again??

Boortz is just Rush Limbaugh in a clown suit. You wanna quote a conservative, try George Will. I rarely agree with his opinions, but at least you can respect his arguments.

[Neserk]

It'll take 100 years to get this thing to pass.

Good :D