hugo

Still can't believe my alumni, University of Houston, beat OK State. Franklin blown two straight saves, 10 games ahead with 20 to go, he's got time to get on track.

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=madisonnjeffferson

Someone has to give the admins something to do over there.

The only reason she don't agree with our comments all the time is because she is a damn loony commie.

Frederick is always Johnny on the spot.

Ain't nothing wrong with venting occasionally.

If the government does have a role it should use built in automatic stabilizers; i.e when the unemployment rate goes up unemployment benefits increase. This takes the politics out of it. There will always be a business cycle.

Bender is right. When GW was growing federal domestic spending at a faster rate than any President since LBJ, running huge deficits in times of prosperity, and expanding the federal government's role in education and healthcare where was the dissent from the vast majority of Republicans? Why did a Republican President and congress massively expand government?

I blame a lot of the lack of civil discourse on talk radio. There was a time when books by economists made the best seller list. I suggest reading the Keynesian, John Kenneth Galbraith's, The Affluent Society, and the neo-classisist, Milton Friedman's, Capitalism and Freedom. not only will you learn about the two competing ideologies that have shaped debate in the post WWII era, but you will find great examples in civil discourse.

Most Americans are too damn ignorant to discuss the issues we face. They must rely on attacking the individuals they are debating to substitute for their lack of knowledge. Whenever you see in debate someone constantly using "you're" (the ignoramouses often mispell it "your") you know you are dealing with an ignorant individual. Best to just put them on ignore.

I told that asshole I was not going to take his last name. The trip to Vermont is off. Emkay and Ali, it is difficult for me to enter the alternative dimension of space and time that allows me to pic you in the future, It is easiest when I have a nude photo and a pair of used panties of the one I am trying to get a future pic of.

God tends to let nutjobs do his light work.

Let's not go too far here. Our real problem is our kids are being taught by members of a far left trade union for a dozen years.

One problem many minority students face is being accused of "acting white' if they study hard. No one is better positioned than Barack Obama to undermine that atttitude.

msnbc.com Video Player

Chi at 40: [attach=full]2503[/attach] And I thought my future looked bleak. Not many psychics can produce actual photos of your future self. If you would like a pic of your future self send $19.99 to Hugo the Psychic, PO Box 6969, Heck, TX 66666. I promise most of the photos will not be as depressing as Chi's.

The Tigers, supposedly rebuilding, kicked Illinois ass on Saturday. Who knows, they may do better than I expected.

Cucumbers and Squash

Sarah Palin: I think I can see Russia from here. Husband: Shut up, ya damn dingbat!

Washington's Lies by Walter E. Williams President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, "Williams, you don't show much trust in the White House and Congress." Let's check out their past dishonesty. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress? Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services." Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true. Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment. The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41 percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts? Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here's what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year ... beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's Congress's lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay." Let's repeat that last sentence: "That is the most you will ever pay." Compare that to today's reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185. The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you ... The checks will come to you as a right." First, there's no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments. We can thank public education for American gullibility.

Frederic Bastiat quotes: ?Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.? ?Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.? ?Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.? ?Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal.?

"Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed." -- Walter Williams

The problem with democracy in the third world is their vote counting procedures is usually akin to Florida's.

Not sure if his talent is God given or if his human line evolved from some apes that were damn good with a stick.

They just don't make crazed axe murderers like they used to.