bleedorange

I'm sure there are some things that have not turned out as well as intended with deregulation. You take the good with the bad with a lot of these decisions. Then again, it's hard to argue which is better because there is seldom a control group to look at. External forces play a part in all these things.

Yes. Without question.

The Airline Deregulation Act

It's just as boring as everything else he's released in the last seven years. Mysterious Production of Eggs was really good, but everything since then has been mediocre at best.

A theme that runs through the majority of your posts.

Stone cold classic.

Doesn't really seem like much of a compromise.

That anaolgy doesn't work, though. The law school is not preventing someone from using birth control. There is no stipulation that to attend a Catholic school, you must refrain from using it. There's no infringement of basic rights. It's simply a matter of whether the private school should be forced by the government to fund something it believes to be repugnant.

Austin icon Leslie Cochran dies at age 60

He already apologized. What is there to denounce? Why is it necessary? Why lend Rush more legitimacy than he deserves by continually bringing it up? Politics have really become absurd when you consider how "important" it is to some people that politicians must condemn every single controversial thing that is said by someone. Furthermore, he might have a lot of listeners, but I don't think that means that every single one of them is believing every word he says. Again, if he had a lot of power and influence, you would see far different results in the last two primaries than you are actua

I think his "influence" on the Republican party is overblown. If it were as great as some people claim, John McCain would have never won the nomination in 2008. Who is he supporting in this primary? I doubt it's Romney, and he'll most likely win the nomination. So I'm not really sure where this influence is showing itself.

YU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But should they? I would argue no.

I'm not making a right/left argument at all. I guess I just don't get offended easily. You're right about Ed Schultz. I forgot about that incident. I don't think Howard Stern was ever fined for calling someone a slut, but I have no idea if he ever did. His fines were for indecent material. All I'm saying is that the comments Limbaugh made, in context, were not said with malice. A lot of people were offended and a lot of advertisers pulled out because of it, which is certainly within their rights. I just don't think it was as bad as everyone said it was.

After actually listening to the segment in which Limbaugh makes his comments, I take back my original stance and defend Rush. I thought it was pretty funny. If a comedian or Howard Stern says the same thing, nothing is said about it. And that is essentially what Rush is...a shock jock.

Huh?

So private religiously-affiliated institutions not paying for birth control pills for their students is the reason the budget isn't balanced? I can't believe how simple it is.

The only issue here is forcing a private entity to fund something it doesn't want to based on religious grounds.

See...I didn't think you would actually compare what Rosa Parks did to someone who wants her school to pay for her birth control pills. Apparently, I was mistaken.

He'll suffer some at first, but he'll ultimately draw more and attract different advertisers to fill the holes. Every time something like this comes up, I'm reminded he still has a radio show, which is his end goal.

Of course. I don't think anyone is defending Rush. But the main issue has been clouded by the ravings of a radio blowhard who is not taken seriously anymore by most people. EDIT: I don't know what your Rosa Parks line means.

Good article on this matter.

Sure it was. Presidents trying to shape the judiciary in their image has been going on since the birth of this country, starting when John Adams made all his eleventh-hour appointments right before Jefferson took office, and Jefferson trying to undo as much as he could (leading to Marbury v. Madison).

Actually, it looks like a pretty good list. The only questionable thing about it would be the inclusion of Dylan's Love and Theft.

It wasn't derailed. I think everyone got your simple point. I just decided to shift the conversation elsewhere. Then again, if it's both tongue-in-cheek and an apt description, it makes it difficult to argue with since you're trying to have it both ways. Also, I find it odd how you use apostrophes for plural words (American's) and plurals for possessive words (countries ills). Interesting, but probably just another strange fixation.