With these newly learned organizational skills, you can go out and get real jobs, support our capitalist economy and fund the War on Terror with your taxes.

it's like being forced to answering the question, "Did you ever stop beating your wife, yes or no."  The premise is dead wrong.

Invading Iraq for regime change was right, even though we will pay a price doing it.

Ever since feminists and other liberals gave Clinton a pass after being "rapist in chief", you've raised the scandal bar so high, Americans tune everything out.

When are you going to stop hammering Republicans and show us what you can do?

but have never had the combination of value, policies, candidates and campaigns to match the Republicans this century.  If these activities my you feel good, I guess that's something.

The Declaration of Independence was stating that NO government can grant or deny rights - wasn't trying to bring God into this, just completing the quote so you could look it up more easily.

I agree activist judges moved some issues along, but with the new (and improved) Supreme Court, you now have to make existing democratic processes work, which means you can't just hire a Johnny Cochran type to bequeth you whatever status you desire.  You first have to speak respectfully to the electorate, which pleases me to no end, and convince them of your equality.  More people are with you than you know, but you just couldn't give up the title of marriage for civil union, and suffered a horrible backlash as a result.

One day, you will recognize the terrible crime abortion is (other than those cases that threaten the life of, or serious harm to, the mother).  To me its an obvious case of one class of people, women, who are abusing their power over another class of people, unborn children.  With your type of thinking, we would still have slavery.

If you ever had to deal with the United Auto Workers, you would know why I blame unions for our economics state.  Even now, many unions have to drastically cut back on wages and benefits to keep industries alive in the US, and executives have made their sacrifices too (GM execs took 50% pay cut).

Teachers unions serve the teachers, not the students, so schools have been losing their effectiveness in preparing students for the workforce, because of teachers putting too much emphasize on liberal policy indoctrination (in college, students backlash and join conservative groups in overwhelming numbers) instead of Reading, Writing and Arithmatic.

Through diminished training, waning work ethic and the increased burden of social services recipients, America corporations just can not maintain competitiveness.  Outsourcing has been the only means of keeping many American companies afloat.

I agree on only a very narrow influence of government in the marketplace.  Not every circumstance generates a profitable market, so if there is some need or social good that is desired by a government, then the government must create the market to bring the needy and the entities that can fulfill the need together - business friendly legislation, tax breaks for property, training and employment, perhaps some temporary noncompetitive business practices can be allowed (pharmaceuticals can "recoup" investments by being the only providers of certain drugs for years, etc.)

I see markets being the best way to solve problems, not as the cause of them.  You just have to craft good policy.

liberal tag line...

"The worthiness of a fight has nothing to do with the outcome."

so to answer your question, Bush's approach to the war on terror, sweeping clean the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, in spite of the costs, is dead right.  I just wish he had the time in his second term to take down Syria, Iran and North Korea.

1) Afghanistan is a democracy, which eliminates one of the main causes for terrorism - a feeling of helplessness most muslims feel under totalitarian regimes - and what do you know, no more terrorist training camps.

2) Libya abondoned their nuclear weapons programs.

3) Lebanon booted Syrian troops out of their country and held free elections.

4) Palestine elected Hamas, who will recognize Israel to receive all the money they need.

5) Saddam was removed and a democracy put in place, removing a destablizing force in the region.

6)  Germany, France and Russia are now brow beating both Syria and Iran, instead of aiding and abedding.

Osama is on the run, and Al Quieda has run out of cash, resulting in no terrorist attacks since 9/11, when prior to 9/11, Al Quieda hit two of our foreign embassies, a warship, and the World Trade Center once before.

So again, by what measure are we less safe?

identified the Creator as the grantor of unalienable rights, and went on to make the case that no government (much less any institution within a government) can grant or deny these rights.

James Carville and Paul Begala, in their book "Take It Back", outlined the approach of "progress, not perfection", as the means by which you could "democratically" achieve the "gay rights" you seek.

I support your "gay rights", but a majority of Americans don't, and in a democracy, you must work with everyone else to achieve whatever status you desire.  Women used legislative processes to achieve equality.  Blacks used legislative processes to achieve equality.  What makes your ass so special that you can bypass the same amount of work that other discriminated groups performed?

I only know love when someone hits me....

Instead of making the typically hysterical claims, as only a woman could, that my posts are inaccurate, illogical, etc., then cite chapter and verse to me and support your claims, but alas, you don't.

These girl-slaps that effeminate liberal men (sorry to be redundant) and loafer wearing, cigar smoking women make in an attempt to "abuse me", just aren't strong enough to enjoy, so I am forced to evoke a more animated response from you by prodding you with inflamatory points to set you off.

In order of most direct affect on everyday life:

1) Executive Branch applies / enforces laws and policies, both nationally and internationally, so they have direct contact with people, but can only do what Constitution and Legislative Branch prescribes.

2) Legislative Brach writes laws, which may be vetoed by Executive Branch or overruled by Judicial Branch, but are direct representatives of their constituents.

3) Judicial Branch reviews laws, as written by the Legislative Branch, and improved / enforced by Executive Branch, and effects are far downstream of the other two branches.

When the Supreme Court was activist, inventing "rights" in the constitution, it was powerful, but Republicans have now wrested control of the Supreme Court and ended this practice.  NOW, the legislative and executive brances of the federal government, as well as state governments, can get back to doing what they do - direct representation of their constituents.

although I wasn't able to express it properly.  In my parenthetical about making exceptions for the obvious needs of shelter, food, clothing, energy, etc., I believe I was making your point.  Other types of consumption, alcohol, cigarettes and other vices and entertainment/recreation should receive higher taxes.

If top income makers are truly doing value added work, why penalize them for that, because they increase the wealth of the nation, and moreover, they can't take it with them, so they get taxed when they try to use the money for the non-essential consumption items, which are more heavily taxed.  Doesn't that serve your need to see the rich pay more?

Bottom line, this nation is the most wealthy and strongest, when we keep money in the hands of those who know how to behave properly with it.

Finally, why must liberals always resort to name calling in response to ideas.  Could that be the cause of your party not having any new ideas?

you assessment is correct.  The Supremen Court has a new religion of narrowly interpreting the constitution to achieve unanimous decisions and push the hard work of the democratic process back to the states, so that they become the incubator of solutions, not Washington DC.  I prefer this method, because it gives results the come from voters and representatives, not judges.

Even the article to which you've attached this comment is a diatribe hammering Lieberman to get back in line and support the extreme left Democratic Party line from Howard Dean and Hollywood.

Over half the posts hear decry the weak Democrats for not marching in lockstep and pushing for anything that is good politics regardless of whether it is good policy.

Yes, Republicans are in lockstep, because we have common and consistent values, policies, candidates and campaigns - Democrats don't.

If there is any way that I can help you tear yourselves down, just let me know.