Bet you really wanted the dog to be lifting a hind leg over the sign but the editors wouldn't let you.

Ain't it the truth. America cleaned house (and senate) back in 2006 after the country first showed signs of heading off the cliff. We called for change again in 2008 in a final effort to throw out the anchor before the country plunged into the abyss.

Now that the fateful journey to disaster has slowed, we hear calls to return the old drunk drivers to the wheel and step on the gas. With all the cries from the right to "throw the bums out" for the last ten months, I don't see anyone in the pits except the same people who thought they knew how to drive back in 2004.

Bluedogs should get with the program, or get out of the way lest they find themselves sitting home writing their lonely memoirs after the next house cleaning.

So, in essence, you are saying (not Clay, but previous posters) Blue Dog Democrats are the same as Moderate Republicans. And they are to blame for the demise of whatever 'party' is currently in favor.

When are you extremists going to wake up and 'smell the coffee'?
Nothing of any benefit, to the American taxpayer, ever came from the extreme fringes of either political belief.
In fact, the only possible result of standing on the 'far Left or Right' is to tip the scales in your own favor.

So, keeping America and its inhabitants 'off balance' must be your primary goal. If not, then why would you be so critical of those in your own (not to mention the 'other') party who dare step closer to middle or common ground?

Divide and conquer has always been a good military strategy.
"Yellow Dogs" and "Blue Dogs" as well as "Right-Wing, Holier-than-Thou Conservatives" as opposed to...what is it you call your moderate counterparts..oh yeah, "Turn coats."

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot, I was told the other day if I wasn't a 'true believer' it didn't concern me.
Enjoy....

Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

Bush: huge deficits. Obama: even bigger ones.
Bush: high unemployment. Obama: even higher (despite promises of not exceeding 8%.) Cartoon that, Mr Bennett?
(Wish your cartoons were in color in the paper every day.)
For real improvement, go Christian, which in politics means rather libertarian: instead of picking each other's pockets, be free to serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13). If a man won't work, neither should he eat--Thessalonians. Improve schools by improving families: monogamy instead of various fornications (I Corinthians). Let the courts do justice and terrorize evildoers instead of monkeying around (Romans 13).
www.lohr84.com

I don't want any party marching heel to toe with the party line. In fact, I wish we didn't have parties, just issues.

I'm pretty liberal on a lot of issues, but saying all Democrats should march together is asking people to put their party ahead of their country, ahead of what they believe is right and, at times, their own political security.

We could deride congressmen and senators for voting for their own political security, but it's another way of saying they are following the will of the people.

Woody, I understand your call for moderation, but it's the Blue Dogs (especially in the Senate) who are resistant to the public option in the current healthcare proposals. And as fearful as the Republicans who have you feel about that particular aspect of the legislation, it's really not all that radical.

Unlike the GOP, the Democratic Party actually does have a big tent. The party's cultural and political diversity is its strength... but, at times, it can also be its weakness. Like now, when important legislation can be thwarted by a few of the party's more conservative members.

This isn't about compromise, it's about coercion.

The fact of the matter is, a majority of the people want health care reform, and want a public option. Any elected official who is not willing to give them both, is derelict in his or her duty.

I can hardly wait until election time - I wanna vote to change the change that we changed when we thought we needed a change for a change ‘ cause I think that the change we got is gonna cost me more change than I got!

Nice and light...with a bite. Thanks, Otmer.

However it is stated or received, woody, the internal affairs of the Republican Party are not the business of the Democratic Party...and vice versa. Provided they are legal, of course. If that is taken as an affront, so be it.

Not to be overly critical or nitpicky, but those moderate candidate/incumbent Republican "turncoats" you refer to are more properly called "RINOs". Turncoats are RINOs who arlenspector and support the Democratic candidate -- as did Pastafazoola.

God Bless the Blue Dog. He has exposed the hype of Obamism for what it really is --- classic Hucksterism. Good boy Blue Dog.

You know there are a lot of smart people on this post. If only our legislators would listen to the likes of people on this post then maybe they would get somewhere. If you really sit back and look at what everyone says, there are tidbits of good in all of it.

I do believe that most americans do want a change in Healthcare. I have heard on conservative radio shows that the current system will be financially out of control in thet next 10 to 15 yrs, being more than 25% of income. So yes there needs to be some changes. But I also believe that rushing it thru just to say it is done (which is what the House did) will cause a lot more mistakes than it would if it could be debated for a while.

I just wish both sides would sit down and talk about this logically instead of drawing party lines like they do so much of the time.

On a side note, just as we honored the veterans yesterday, I am very thankful we have people in D.C. willing to serve there. It is a very difficult job. I know there is corruption there but that happens everywhere, even in the military. But I believe it is not the norm but the exception.

"OllieH wrote: "The fact of the matter is, a majority of the people want health care reform, and want a public option."

Ollie, I believe you're correct in one regard; the majority want to fix what is broken in the current health care system. However, the majority do not want the type of reform that has been proposed so far by the left in Congress.

11/09/09 "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Most (52%) remain opposed."

Only 25% Strongly Support the plan while 42% are Strongly Opposed. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...

Otmer,

ROFLMAO!!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Woody, moonpie,

Ya'll have hit on a very profound point. The blue dogs are very much the mirror image of the moderately liberal Republicans.

That said, I find it delicious that the far left has finally put two and two together and come up with four. For all the invective being hurled at Repubs in Congress, it has been the Blue Dogs all year who have who have had the power and the courage to slow down the blind rush toward the dead end of statism.

I think we would be in worse shape if McCain and Palin in the Whitehouse with the tabloids having its fun. Ya'll need to give that man a break and pray for him.

BAD DOG!! >:|
Where's Michael Vick when you need him?

Bless you, Moonpie, for your posting at 7:37AM. I was trying to compose something similar but you did it nicely for me.

I DO wonder, though what would happen if the BLUE DOGS and RHINOS got together somehow, and formed a new party which I couldn't join because I'd lose my ind. Ind. status and freedom.

Ollie, you have great 'eyesight'...
Scotty, It was also good reading your response.

Plus, Moonpie, Otmer, and Matrixbandit you helped 'make my day'!!

Woody

I don't normally post. Don't usually have time to read all of the ones you guys and gals leave. This list was worth reading. For once I agree with something in almost every post. Scottym, Otmer and Walden say it best for me though. Thanks for taking the time to do this everyday. It's actually better than the cartoons.

quietreader-
Henceforth ye shall be named loudposter. Join the fray my friend!
Walden

Hold on a second. When Arlen Specter didn't follow the party he was praised by many on here as free-thinking, independent, "one of the most respected Congressmen in Washington." But when Democrats don't follow the party line, they're fodder for cartoons and the source of Democratic scorn. Interesting.

What's this? NY-23's Democratic victory may actually be in jeopardy and have to be reversed? You mean PelosiCare was voted on by a rep who maybe wasn't actually entitled to his seat? What fun this will be to follow!

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2...

Dss, I don't know that Clay is depicting the Blue Dogs scornfully. I think the cartoon summarizes a political reality. (you may not have meant him-- I'm assuming. Certainly some dems do look at them this way, and these are the people you may have been referring to)

That's not to say Clay doesn't harbor I'll feelings. I'm saying even if he feels like I do, it's an accurate depiction. That's what makes the cartoon so good: we can all take the same political situation and interpret through our own political lenses.

Great work, Clay, as usual. Lightnup, funny first post. You too otmer.

The President is finding out the hard way (at our expense), that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Let's hear it, more of the same, more of the same!!!

Bad Dog, Indeed! Time for Rep. Clyburn to put this pup in a the dog house. Can't let this go on or it will tear apart more than this paper.

It would be better for the country if both teams would be torn up; left,right, middle, far right, far left!

Give me players who will genuinely represent all the people, not those millionaires who can afford to run and have no idea how the lower income people struggle.

What I can't understand is how those elected that were millions in debt, have the arrogance to try to represent those of us who struggle against catastrophe, even minor ones such as a car breakdown, or an exorbitant heating bill. How in the world did they get in such debt.

Give me a smart, honest, poor, representative, who would work for us all, and forego the perks the present office holders feel they are entitled to. It seems to me there were some, once.

How can a poor person with ability be elected?

Sigh!

Clara wrote: "How can a poor person with ability be elected?"

Good news for you Clara. By the time this administration is done "fundamentally transforming" America, the pool of poor people from which to pick somebody will be considerably larger.

Lightnup, I know your comment that this administration's policies are going to make America poorer was said with an element of humor.

However, that's exactly what people said about Bill Clinton. I hated Bill Clinton. I thought the same thing then, that you say now. It didn't come to pass. Quite the opposite, in fact.

To be sure, not all of Clinton's proposals passed. Nor will all of Obama's.

However, if we don't fundamentally change health care delivery, we all will be poorer. If costs continue to sky-rocket, ultimately you and I pay for it.

A public option is a tool (not the holy grail) to keep costs down. As a matter of fact, I don't think it's the best tool, but it may be the best tool that the current political situation will allow.

The good news is (as Republicans would see it), the current proposals are being watered down to the point where Republicans will be able to one day claim "Obabma failed". The current direction of the health care proposal will be better than what we have now. It may slow the rising cost, but it is not likely to stop it.

6 years from now, after costs have continued to rise, Republicans will say, "See, costs still rose. It was a failure."

It will be like the patient who took blood pressure medicine for 15 years and still died of a stroke, and a family member says, "see the medicine didn't work." The family member fails to see that without the medicine, the patient would have died in 5 years.

This is easy pickings for politicians and they know it. They're doing to Obama now with the economy. If the economy was worse right now, the same right now, or slightly improved (current state) compared to when he took office, his political rivals will blast him. If there had been miraculous recovery, is opponents would say the recovery had nothing to do with him.

In politics, your opponents give you all of the blame and none of the credit.

Republicans and Democrats both do it. And it's ugly on both sides. It's a total sham. Lightnup, you and I, as Americans can do little about how the politicians play their games.

You and I don't have to play that game, do we?

But because too many of us regard political parties as our "team" like this is an SEC Rivalry, we support our side not matter what and we end up playing that gambit and doing the dirty work for the powers that be.

Ultimately, this is the work of pawns.

We'll all play the role at times, unwittingly. We should try to recognize it and resist.

moonpie, such is the nature of politics.

While we would like to believe that those we elect are above the influence of the power they hold as our representatives, the fact is many are in politics now because of the power. It may not have been their original intention, but being called upon constantly by big pocket lobbyists (of any type, corporate or otherwise) and realizing the control they possess over a group of people creates a desire to retain that influence. As that influence is retained, the sense of entitlement grows. They move from "being thankful" to hold such a position to "it is my calling" to hold such a position, implying that it applies to no one else but themselves.

What eats me up is when they are saying they are "serving" their country by holding that position. Makes me sick to think those in Congress, making $160k a year, are "serving." The one's who are actually serving are those we honored just a couple of days ago.

Here's a political science experiment: Completely eliminate all lobbyists, period. That would be an interesting start.
-------------------------------------------------------
Blue Dogs are an interesting breed. I was able to watch one of their townhall meetings on CSPAN during the August recess, and as someone who considers myself conservative, I found myself agreeing with them far more than disagreeing when they were discussing health care.

I will give credit to Blue Dogs if (and only if) they are truly representing the views of their constituents. If they are doing it just to throw political muscle around, then spare us all and represent what your constituents want. Novel idea, isn't it.

Blameing the Democrats for the countrys problems is like telling the bus driver to put on the brakes after the bus has ran off the cliff.

aces, as usual, very lucid arguments.

Moonpie, I know you are on the liberal side about as much as I am on the conservative side, so we do not always see eye to eye with each other on issues, but what you posted this morning, I could not agree with more. Especially your lines of, "In politics, your opponents give you all of the blame and none of the credit.

Republicans and Democrats both do it. And it's ugly on both sides. It's a total sham." and "But because too many of us regard political parties as our "team" like this is an SEC Rivalry, we support our side not matter what and we end up playing that gambit and doing the dirty work for the powers that be."

It is ridiculous. We haven't had a majority of politicians that support the Americans in a long time. It, too often, seems that they only care about being reelcted, and not drafting the bill that will actually benefit Americans as a whole. This is what I hate about our Far Left Liberals and our Far Right Conservative. As Woody has said on here before, if you lean too far right, or too far left, you are going to fall over. We need more middle ground politicians, such as the RINOs and the Blue Dogs in my opinion.

And Aces, your comment: "What eats me up is when they are saying they are "serving" their country by holding that position. Makes me sick to think those in Congress, making $160k a year, are "serving." The one's who are actually serving are those we honored just a couple of days ago."

Amen.

And I would love to see that political science experiment you proposed. That would be very interesting.

I believe that the tone of these post on this cartoon is the way that the vast majority of Americans feel. All of you guys have stated things very well.. As I said earlier, there are a bunch of smart people here.

Also, I go back to something I said on previous cartoons. If we elect people of good character, (honesty, integrity, good ethical behavior... and the list goes on), then the majority of issues would be handled much better. Possibly even congress would vote as their constituents wanted.

whoknows writes:

"It's a total sham."

Yes, indeed.

Actually, moonpie writes about the sham and whoknows agrees.

Moonpie wrote "...Lightnup, you and I, as Americans can do little about how the politicians play their games."

That's true, but why have these forums if not to discuss it and call it out as we see it?

I stand by my comment that there will be more poor people by the time Obama and the liberals in Congress finish fundamentally transforming this country. And here is why:

Health care legislation that mandates the purchase of health insurance yet still leaves tens of millions uncovered that the rest of us still have to pay for as we already do.

Health care legislation that creates numerous new government bureaucracies and entitlements, none of which in American history have ever ended up not costing us many, many times more than estimated by the proponents.

Health Care legislation that calls for higher taxes on small businesses and a 5.4% surtax on individuals "making" more than $500,000 and couples "making" over $1,000,000. A large number of people in that category are small businesses that report their business income on their personal tax returns. These business owners, the ones who create and provide jobs, will be poorer as a result of this legislation and current (evil Bush) tax cuts coming to an end and will be much less apt to hire additional employees.

A cap & trade scheme that will cause skyrocketing utility bills (Obama's words, not mine), lead to more lost jobs (unemployment benefits are already embedded in the legislation, acknowledging that reality) and create yet another government entitlement (checks to low-income households to help pay those skyrocketing utility bills). There is a provision in the legislation allowing the Social Security administrator to access the General Fund should S.S. revenue drop due to cap & trade, an indicator that those drafting the legislation are well aware that this is a job-killing bill. Americans will be poorer as a result of this legislation.

Of course, there's also the $787 Billion non-stimulating stimulus bill, the increasing of the federal debt to $12 Trillion, quadrupling the federal deficit to $1.4 Trillion, all of which will leave Americans poorer as a result of the current administration's "fundamentally transforming" this country.

Bush was also guilty of these sins, but that's not an adequate defense for this administration to do the same thing on a more massive scale.
_____________________

"The interest paid on the National Debt is the second largest expense in the federal budget. Only income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher. As the debt increases, so does the interest payment. Social spending is the largest item in our federal budget."

http://www.federalbudget.com/

"Health Care legislation that calls for higher taxes on small businesses and a 5.4% surtax on individuals "making" more than $500,000 and couples "making" over $1,000,000. A large number of people in that category are small businesses that report their business income on their personal tax returns. These business owners, the ones who create and provide jobs, will be poorer as a result of this legislation and current (evil Bush) tax cuts coming to an end and will be much less apt to hire additional employees."

I have a question, since I know so little about this:
Why do small business owners report income as personal? Do some separate their personal and business finances for tax purposes? What are the advantages and disadvantages (other than this obviously) to putting them together? Small businesses don't have the advantages of big corporations, yet so many Americans work for small businesses, which behooves us to make sure that businesses don't get burdened needlessly.

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

Small business owners have the option of incorporating, at which point the income of their business would be taxed at the corporate level (20% cap for most), plus they could expense their pay, but then they'd still have to declare that pay as income. Most small business owners find that it all comes out in the wash, and unless they are re-investing a large amount of their returns, it might even benefit them to remain unincorporated. This does not take into account the liability issues precluded by incorporation, only tax incentives.

Lightnup, I see your points, and I agree that the watered down health care proposal has some major flaws.

I, for one, would prefer universal health care. Other countries have found that to be far less expensive than the U.S. system with better outcomes for their countries as a whole (save for a few areas of excellence within the U.S. system).

Perhaps Americans would never stand for the realities of the kind of system I'd like to see. It has it's trade offs.

I think anyone who says that a universal health care system could be accomplished without rationing and/or tax hikes is not looking at it realistically.

On the bright side, your out of pocket medical expenses would be essentially zero, as would your premium. But your taxes would be higher. I think it's worth the trade. (I do not expect to convince you of this, and I'm not trying to argue the point. Just relaying my thoughts.)

In other issues, I know a lot of us have worried about the various bailouts and stimulus packages. Perhaps we're trading one hole for another hole... who knows. Either way, I hope we, as Americans, have learned some lessons.

We as a nation were borrow and spend. Cheney promoted borrow and spend (e.g. "deficits are meaningless").

I for one prefer tax and spend to borrow and spend.

Anyway... have a good night.

Thanks gngriffin. An I right in thinking that it may be advantageous to incorporate because the rate is lower? I think my tax rate as an individual is higher than 20%. What's the downside? Too much regulation? Are there other expectations that come with incorporation that small business owners would rather avoid? Are deductions handled differently?

The downside of incorporating would be that the business would be taxed on its income at that rate and then whatever you pay yourself would be taxed by your individual rate. It is double taxation. So if you decided to keep all of it, then it would be taxed the 20%. Then the 80% that is left over that you were to pay yourself would be taxed your individual rate.

Jaw822 is correct. The only time it really makes sense to incorporate (again, liability issues notwithstanding) is when you are reinvesting the majority of the small business's income. If the business purchases depreciating capital (equipment that lasts more than a year) it can add further tax incentives, but generally speaking, if the business is your savings machine, and most of the business income is reinvested, then it can potentially make sense. If you're planning on paying yourself all of the income minus operating costs, it almost certainly does not.

Moonpie writes: "I think anyone who says that a universal health care system could be accomplished without rationing and/or tax hikes is not looking at it realistically."

Dadgum straight moonpie. Bad idea jeans, my friend (to use an old SNL reference).

Moonpie further states: "I for one prefer tax and spend to borrow and spend."

To that I say, C'mon Man! I, for one, prefer less taxation, and less spending.

Give people the right to buy insurance across state lines, cut the predatory lawyers out of the equation (strong tort reform), and try to educate people on the true cost of healthcare. By this I mean, nobody understands what it really costs to go to the doctor and get an MRI, or get a check up, or whatever. It all seems like funny money.

Taxes are bad man. We need to get a grip on that reality. If Obama gave a damn about job creation, he would cut tax rates, especially on small businesses. The whole universal health care at any cost thing is political malfeasance at its finest.

Sorry to all for the rambling post. It's Friday night, ya know.

Once the National Health Service [USA] takes effect, I for one will become a Socialist Democrat and toe the party line.

What, you think I want to be told I can no longer get anything but "Take two aspirin...etc" when I call for a doctor's appointment? Not me...I'll go Dem every time.

That, my fellow posters, is the probable longterm result of .gov control of health care.

Have a nice day.

Touche Walden,

I'll get on board with tax less and save. Short of that I'll settle for tax and spend over borrow and spend.

I like the gumption.

"Tax less, borrow not at all, spend a lot less" works for me.

I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to point out to me where the words "medicine" or "health care" or "insurance" appear in the Constitution. [Pauses....]

Nah, didn't think so.

Actually, neither does Postal Service, FAA, OSHA, or the right to name your children.

moonpie - I agree that borrowing is the greater evil, but if we really think through it, we don't need either one. Have a good Saturday.
Walden

Once again you are caught in a lie, lkeithlu, and a basic one at that. Rather unusual for such a highly educated personage as yourself, nein? You should develop a better set of research tools. Do you work for the feds, by chance?

The reference is found under the duties of congress, to wit:

"7. To establish post-offices and post-roads."

Oops-ya got me. I concede. Now, the FAA? OSHA? Why do we have those if they are not in the constitution? How about the right to name your kids?

Nope-don't work for the feds. Just made a mistake that was avoidable, but I got sloppy. At least I can admit it!

One was enough to prove the lie, lkeithlu. Had you not been caught you would have continued.

Careless? I doubt it. More arrogant, I think; that and you never expected to be called on it. [Remember your little threat to watch my postings and Canary's for inaccuracies? Consider yourself called.] It is indeed a "gotcha".

The others you cite fall under the Executive Cabinet and/or the Legislative Powers section. Look 'em up.

I stand corrected! That's why I shouldn't comment on topics other than science. Is FAA specifically noted? Or does it fall under a more general idea? How about naming your kids? (being wrong is not always lying; sometimes we are just careless. The difference is owning up to it, something you seem unable to do on the science stuff, rolando)

I looked through the articles-couldn't find anything about bank regulations, but it may have been stated in a way I couldn't understand. Didn't find anything about safety, so nothing related to FAA or OSHA. Am I looking in the wrong place? Naming your kid would be in the Bill of Rights, wouldn't it?

Since the constitution was written a couple-three years or so before the Wright Bros. first flew, I doubt the FAA is in there, as written. It falls under DOT.

Banking wasn't cited in your original post.

All of this is easily found by going to .gov, finding the constitution, pressing control-f and doing your search. Google works really well.

You remind me more and more every time you post of the many spaced-out under- and post-grad students I have met over the years. They all had trouble telling time, coming in out of the rain, etc. I used to think it was because they were deep thinkers...but I got over that; they just couldn't multi-task.

If I was proven wrong, I owned up to it. Please query me on that thread, if you disagree.

The FAA was formed in response to a 1956 mid-air collision, over the Grand Canyon if I am not mistaken. That was a pretty anti-communist time in our history-did folks argue against it for this reason? How about medicare, medicaid and social security? FDA? ATF? DEA? NTSB? FEMA? As far as banking, I think that is covered. I didn't read all the articles for detail.

You were not "proven" wrong because you refused to look at the references I gave. You were wrong, not because you are a liar (I don't call people liars-that's a pretty strong accusation and people make mistakes all the time) but because you are misinformed. I was sloppy, but not dishonest.

I am not a "spaced out under- or post- grad student." (I'm WAY too old) Dog only knows what institutions you have been associated with, but students I meet are nothing of the sort. I DO know my areas well, but can admit my mistakes and admit to not knowing much about some areas. You, on the other hand, refuse to learn anything new if it comes from someone that you have serious political differences with. When it came to the things you posted on science, you were wrong. Period. How do I know? Because it's my area. I would not argue with you on your area of expertise; I would listen and learn.

Ah. You finally did some of your own research...or you had a gopher do it for you. In either case, good for you.

And you took the bait; you and alprova are two of a kind...easy. As suspected, you were fishing for some kind of answer -- any kind, it doesn't matter -- just so you can find something wrong with it. Well, I made it easy for you. Welcome aboard, sucker. LOL

Your references, I find, are as reliable and as objective as the APA.

You are as one of those folks who learn more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing and nothing about everything. I have met many self-styled "engineers" with that problem. None of them were worth last night's dishwater.

Have a nice day.

Good gracious, rolando! How venomous! Did your mother beat you when you were small? I have no gophers, whatever they are.

Did you actually visit the site I referenced? What are your criteria for saying that it is "as reliable and objective as the APA?" Does that translate to "I will not read this because I think all scientists conspire to lie and fool the public?" I doubt you've ever read any book or journal pertaining to science, yet you are so sure you know it backwards and forwards. If I'm wrong, then give me some examples of what you have read, that you base your opinions on.

What is your profession? What do you do for a living? Your knowledge of history and the constitution is quite good, even though your science knowledge is pretty poor (at least when it comes to evolution)

You appear to be an angry, small minded man who cannot ever admit that he might be wrong, and then launches personal attacks rather than have a reasonable conversation. I am not all knowledgeable, but I am willing to be corrected and admit when I make a mistake. I feel sorry for you.

Incidently, rolando, on the Vols thread you posted: I weep for my country that was". (or some wording pretty close to this) Unfortunately, someone removed it, which I thought was rude and inappropriate; all posts should remain in place. What "was" your country? What have we "lost" that you value? Was there an era that you feel symbolizes our country at its best? I am not trying to bait you, just trying to figure you out.

You want to comment on the Vols thread, go there. It is off-topic here.

I see you never went to the site I cited. You wouldn't understand it anyway.

Yep, last night's dishwater, alright.

"I see you never went to the site I cited. You wouldn't understand it anyway."

What site? You didn't send me anywhere on this thread. You suggested I google, which I did and it answered my constitutional question regarding some things, but not others.

I wanted to comment on the Vol's thread, but someone removed your post. (which I thought was rude) That's why I came here.

You really are hateful-impossible to have a civil conversation with. Probably because you can be anonymous. I have to conclude you are a coward, as you throw out insults, never can conceive that you might know less about something than someone else. These are things you probably wouldn't do face to face; only in the safety of the intertubes. Sad, really.