KevinG

I have listened to it quite a few times. I admit I am an Andrew Bird fan, but I love it. Not on par with Eggs or Armchair, but real good.

The internet is one of the causes of our current state of political discourse. We sit in our offices, homes and whatnot, typing whatever we feel, with little or no regards to the person on the other end. Would we have these pissing matches, if we were at a party? Or with someone we met at work? Probably not, the face to face meeting tends to give an air of civility. Would we destroy someone's argument solely based upon a misspelled word or incorrect punctuation? Would Rush Limbaugh call Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute to her face? The internet has dehumanized people we argue w

I have come to the option that we are two very different people and will never come to a consensus on any political matter. I think that neither of us will change the others mind. Unfortunately, we both keep trying.

I would say yes to a point, if you look at prices alone. But if you look at service and delays has it been all that good?

I would even settle for a concrete example of where deregulation has over benefited the American people. There are some I am sure, but I wonder if Sparky actually reads anything anyone else posts?

I think you summed up how many feel about Obama.

4 years is what I am hoping for, there is a lot of good talent out there.

When I started out after last season with no hope whatsoever, being optimistic that this season won't be a complete disaster might be a good thing.

Well if you go by the recent meaning of compromise Congress (my side gets what they want and you get nothing) it sure does sound like a compromise.

Also remember Fluke is not a public figure, Palin is. That combined with the shear misogyny of his comments put this one over the edge. BTW Rush has also called Michelle Obama fat, uppity, etc. Whereas, not as bad as calling Palin a c*nt, it came pretty close. Did people get upset, sure, did he lose sponsors, no. Rush is provocative and that his his job, but if you begin calling him an entertainer on par with Louis CK, you either a. are fooling yourself b. or don't understand the current nature of politics and the public. Good for him, thank you for pointing that out. I now have

His apology was a joke. He apologized for the words he used not what he said. Did he apology for asking her to put up sex tapes? Did he apologize for inferring she has sex when she was in the six grade? The importance of denouncing his comments, is show the American people that this level of discourse in politics is not acceptable. A candidate can say this is how I feel about this subject and that he agrees with Rush on the issue. But when he said these things it was hurtful things about not only Fluke but women as a whole. It would have shown that a candidate had real morals. By n

Then why hasn't a single candidate denounced what he had said? Why hasn't a single member of Republican Leadership come out against Rush? According to statements on this board he has 15 million people eating out of his hand and believing every single word he says. They do not want to piss off a large majority of the Republican base. Simple as that. I am not saying he is the puppet master and the Republicans do his bidding, but anytime you have that many people listening to you you have power. It is the same with Fox News. You control the message, you control the power, you have the influ

I know it is only spring training and way early for that matter, but the Cubbies are averaging 14 runs a game. And I think a majority of those in the early innings. It has cause for me to be a tad more optimistic.

Shock Jock or not, Rush commands a lot of clout with the Republican Party. You see this by the number of top tier Republicans that come and kiss his ring on his show, and the sheer numbers of "ditto-heads" that do his bidding. Again not one republican candidate, nor prominent Republican admonished him publicly. As George Will stated Republicans are afraid of him. No one can deny that he has a great deal of power within the Republican Party. So the question then comes to this, what kind of political party allows a shock jock to control their party? Last I checked, Stewart, Letterman,

What amazes me is Rush, through his own hubris, changed the debate from should private companies offer birth control if it is against their morals, to be centered around him. He, being the defacto mouth piece of the GOP, makes it seem that the entirety of the party is women hating pigs, who don't know how birth control works. Not one GOP candidate has come out and said criticized Rush for what he said, or demand any type of apology. They are all too afraid of him and his listeners. This right before Super Tuesday, where Mitt Romney, is likely to sew up the nomination. Regardless of

Everyone has their opinion. If you want to disagree that is fine. I simply was trying to point out in my original point it is a hell of lot easier to blame the President for the countries ills, rather then a large group of people they don't know (Congress) and a body of government they know little about. But that was derailed because you did not like my tongue and cheek comment about the Supreme Court. I guess you never know what people will fixate on.

Shadowy adj - mysterious or secretive This is why: 1) I would say the majority of American's don't know what the purpose of the Supreme Court, or what they do 2) ...let alone could name any of them 3) They are appointed for life 4) Their proceedings are not televised or disclosed to the public. I was being more tongue in cheek when I called it "shadowy." Though I believe it is apt.

ok, don't

Never said it was. People in the country like to blame the president for all of the countries problems. It is a lot easier to blame one guy, rather then the 535 nameless people in congress, or the shadowy governmental body that is the supreme court.

Now you are going to tell me there are 3 separate, but equal branches of the government. I could have sworn all the problems in the country solely rested on the shoulders of the president and he alone has the power to change things.

I am fairly sure Sparky is only interested in what he wants to tell, posting Ron Paul propoganda films, anti-Obama rethoric and vaugue platitudes (seriously a respone to direct question is, "Your answers are written in the Constitution of the United States..."), rather then have a thoughtful discussion. I am willing to listen to a resonible arguement of why Ron Paul is a viable canidate with valid ideas, however these one sided "rants" are off putting and truthful hard to follow.

Someone please tell me where libertarian policies and deregulation have been effective and have benefited the American people? It is my contention that government regulation has been more beneficial then governmental non regulation. Here is an example that effected me. In 1996 Clinton passed the Telecom Act. This allowed major consolidation of media by large companies. This decreased competition and gave rise to companies like Clear Channel and Disney to own a majority of TV, Radio, in markets. It also directly lead to the death of my favorite radio station Rev 105. This made real

Ok libertarians out there, give me an historical example where a business has been deregulated and it has worked out better for the American people.

See what I did there I used the quote button. It does, go into details. Pay for it yourself you freeloading hippie.

From the WSJ With Tax Breaks, Corporate Rate is the Lowest in Decades See I what I did there is not pull the government tax rate, I pulled the rate of what was actually paid to the government.