Thank you, Brad!!
Can't wait to listen & hear you wipe the floor with annie & her bony fanny.

Wow, that picture of her is far too flattering. Couldn't find one that shows her fangs?

The Neocon political elite are a Straussian nightmare. Three BBC videos regarding Leo Strauss' political philosophy :

THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES

Part I

http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc1.wmv

Part II

http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc2.wmv

Part III

http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc3.wmv

Listening to the replay now - this is hilarious.

Um, one thing - someone should suggest to Ms Coulter that she take a dose of Ritalin or Adderall or whatever BEFORE she comes on the air, to help her control her impulsive need to interrupt people and talk over them.

And don't anybody go snarky on me, I'm not saying it to be insulting, I sincerely think she is ADHD - and WATCHING her is even more telling than just LISTENING to her. (As an aside, I'd like to hear Thom Hartmann's opinion on that - maybe he could send her one of his books)

And btw, ADHD has nothing to do with her nastiness - she comes by that particular trait on her own (though her lack of self-confidence because of past experiences related to her ADHD might have something to do with it)

It's really sad, she could make it work for her - yet she only uses her powers for evil.

Sorry for the tangent, it's one of those kinds of days And now my streaming audio has stopped.

Yup...My stream stopped too!

And now I gotta get over to the Election Ref. Summit to speak!

We'll do everything we can to catch another replay later tonight and HOPEFULLY get the whole thing posted! It was a lot of fun! Shit...

Re: Republican Ethics - One of the latest Freeway Blogger thingies is to put a sign on garbage cans -

"Republican Ethics Container"

*LOL* I LOVE IT!!!

perfect match! brad and Ann. Neither of you would know truth if it bit you in the ass

Also...tune into The BRAD SHOW LIVE Tonight from the Summit! 7p-11p ET (4p-8p PT)

Brad, you kicked coulter's scrawny butt! YeeHaw! You should feel proud.

Ann left early for an appointment with her nutrionist. Rumor has it she's down to 73 pounds.

The picture is missing horns. :-

who has the streem? i want to hear it.

Crap Brad, you kicked her ass so bad she couldn't even stay on but thanked everyone for having her!!!!!

COULTER LEFT EARLY!!!!!

8-D

What a silly woman. Someone needs to really get her some ritalin or zanax, I'm serious. I am worried about that girl's mental health shit!

Doug

Jesse, editor of TvNewsLIES.org called in to the Ron Insana show this afternoon. What a farce. It was an outrage to see how Jesse's 3 questions were dismissed as if they were never asked. Read the details here:

CNBC’s Ron Insana Propaganda Exposed on Live Radio -
CLICK HERE

and do NOT miss Jesse's editorial on Bill Kristo and PNAC.... a MUST to give out to the sheeple:

KRISTOL CLEAR

Wow........And you think you've seen it all!!!!

Hoo boy......Talk about Culture of "Corruption"!!!!

"Family connections have also helped Rep. Blunt’s son, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, who received campaign contributions from nearly three dozen influential Missouri lobbyists and lawyers when he ran for governor of Missouri in 2004, half of whom had provided financial support to his father.

Rep. Blunt and his staff have close connections to uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is the subject of criminal and congressional probes. In June 2003, Mr. Abramoff persuaded Majority Leader Tom DeLay to organize a letter, co-signed by Speaker Hastert, Whip Roy Blunt, and Deputy Whip Eric Cantor, that endorsed a view of gambling law benefitting Mr. Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta, by blocking gambling competition by another tribe. Mr. Abramoff has donated $8,500 to Rep. Blunt’s leadership PAC, Rely on Your Beliefs."

http://www.beyonddelay.o...delay/rep_roy_blunt_r_mo

"This second case suggests that the funneling of large amounts of money through national committees to bypass state campaign-finance laws may be more widespread, raising questions about whether federal officials have monitored such transfers as closely as is now being done by a Texas prosecutor in the DeLay case, according to watchdog groups.

''It is similar" to the DeLay case, said Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, arguing that that donation's purpose, as in the DeLay case, was to bypass state laws."
LINK

Mother of pearl these guys are so corrupt its RAINING from the sky!!!!! Matt Blunt is Tom Delay, is Jack Abramoff is Roy Blunt, Bob Ney, Michael Chertoff, and the ENTIRE THING equals the biggest culture of corruption you've ever seen!!!!!!!

HOW BIG OF A PRISON DO WE NEED!?!?!!!

Doug E.

Yikes! She was awful, i never heard her stutter so much. I thought she was a lawyer and intellectual, sure hope she writes better than she speaks. Hard to believe people pay to hear that garbage.

And Brad is such a good speaker, he made her look even worse. No contest.

AA must have missed a 12 step meeting.

LOL, maybe more than one, MMIIXX!

Ann Coulter, come over to the White House and smoke pot with me!!!
Jack Abramoff, come over and shoot heroin with me and Laura!
Tom DeLay, come over without delay and join me in a keg party! Laura is supplying the kegs!
Let's party!

Jack Abramoff's reply:

"If I do this will you buy me plain tickets out of the United States georgie? I own you. I patented you. I can make you rise or fall, sucka!"

Tom Delay's reply:

"Can I join you from prison? That's where my friend Scanlon, me and Abramoff are about to head!"

Matt Blunt's reply:

"George, if I joined you I'd have to take half the republican leadership too. They are all just as corrupt as I am and have received AIPAC donations and well, so are 30% of the democrats too. Maybe we should all get ready to hang out in prison together?"

Doug

Don't know how you do it Brad, but your voice of reason makes it possible for me to listen to HER which I would never subject myself to normally.

What a contrast to hear her stumbling, interrupting, getting exasperated because she's being called on her lies, then to hear Brad with calm, cool, collected, facts... well, as Nana said - NO CONTEST!

Brad 1
ann 0

Hypocrisy does not define conservatism, though it does define Ann Coulter and SOME Republicans.

I took Coulter to task for defending hypocrisy in 2003. Please see http://lawenforcement.us...-Re-Defense-of-Rush.html

Evil thrives when good men do nothing. It is up to each of us, Left or Right, to stand up for truth.

Don't suppose there's a transcript somewhere...?

Listened to the whole thing, Brad. I'll admit it. The more of that kind of thing happens to Ann Coulter, the better - and you're getting the information out.

If Ann had been a nice person, it would have been painful.

I laughed out loud when - after evident building of hysteria in Ann, she says the other side is getting hysterical. Surely, she wasn't referring to Brad? That was funny. (She was gone right after that.)

She had nothing. You had the whole thing in this debate. It was a shutout.

Brad, if you keep this up, you will not only be providing a great service in disseminating the truth, you will raising the level discourse with your warm and rational style - almost as much of a gift, in the current political and media climate, as the former.

I guess mAnn's feelin' a little blue after the interview. But, s/he's not too worried, since another pet project is coming up.

Coulter before Aliens makeup

Ann Coulter to star in her fifth Aliens movie

[snip] "She was a natural," said director James Cameron. "We'd ask her to project pure, vicious evil, and she'd spew it in one take. There was the episode with the first production crew, God rest their souls, but she worked well with most of the second."

After the fourth movie, Alien Resurrection, Coulter wrote several books revealing her motivation for playing the part. Coulter suffers from an obsessive hatred of "liberals." [snip] **MORE**

My afternoon and evening have been spent listening to your Ann Counter event (what a moment!) Poor girl! Boo Hoo! A+++

And, the event in Portland (Replay) was totally impressive. I savored every minute! You pour on the "heat" and the opposition is scorched from the smooth strength of your wise and witty words of truth.

KIRA #26 LOL
Ripley: How do we kill it Ash? There got to be a way of killing it, how - HOW do we do it?

Ash: Aim for its 'adams apple'!

#26,
Ooooh, Kira, you're so baaad!!

I finally listened to the whole Brad/mAnn debate. Excellent job, Brad!!!

One of the wonderful things about Brad's debating style is that he remains so completely unruffled. There is a quality in his voice...as if he is just managing to suppress an incredulous laugh at the rightwing nonsense he's hearing. It's great.

Many thanks to Brad (secret agent 007) (or is it secret agent 6 or 7, haha?) for representing so well all those who are working to bring out the truth!!

I'm so glad he mentioned that he has no problem with bringing the law down on democrats & rebublicans alike. Absolutely. Whoever breaks the law needs to be held accountable.
I rarely hear anyone on the right say this!!

Ok, lets try this as a test. Pick the most Liberal Lefty you can find and have Rush Limbaugh interview them. You will find the EXACT reactions on all the Conservative Blog sites. So, what makes this so special. There really is no difference in the methods, only the core beliefs are different. In the end we are all jus depraved self indulgent morons that want the rest of the world to conform to our standards.

My thoughts are this, let stupid people do what they will. Evolution will remove them from the breeding pool eventually. When I was a child there were no requirements for all this safety crap. People had more sense of responsibility, and parents trained their children better. There was a great disconnect in the US culture that started around 1980 or so. I was in elementary school. Thats 1st 2nd or 3rd grade by the way. I do very clearly recall the Principal of my school announcing that the Paddle was removed from his hands. Things started going downhill from there, parents were told no more spanking, time outs are the way to go. Self esteem is the way, make sure the kids think well of themselves. This has created a wonderful group of late 20 somethings that have NO respect or concept of what is right or wrong.

I recently heard that a few of those parenting experts that wrote all those BS books have reconsidered their advice and said spanking is the way to go. Children need to be taught from a very early age that there are consequences to their actions. Children do NOT respond to reason, they have no capacity for it yet. So, physical discipline is the only way to teach this MOST VALUABLE of all LESSONS. There are Consequences to your actions. Regardless of who, what and where you are. You will be held accountable for what you do, in this life or the next. If there is a next life that is. Do you want to take that chance????

OT - sorry. As I want to know more about Bush's pick for Supreme Court, I started doing some searches.

Not that this says much about her potential... but, she hosted an "Ask The White House" forum in August 2004 on the White House Website. Apparently, all White House staff host it at some point.

I chuckle as I quote excerpts from her Q & A;

Harriet Miers actually wrote -

"The President throws horseshoes to Barney, and Barney runs after them. Metal horseshoes are too heavy for Barney to lift, so he doesn't carry them around. Instead he moves them around with his nose... the President loves horsing around with Barney."

"The President spends some of his down time exercising... He also reads a lot... He is a great role model for us all."

Tell me that doesn't crack you up!!! She might be a great pick for the Supreme Court. But, what the hell? Who lowers themselves to participating in the kind of nonsense she wrote above?

Listened,Loved it, You go boy !!
Kestrel #6 - I have one of those but it says "Politicians Ethics" considering the state of things........

#33 - Whazzat?

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

Elsewhere - Mr. Insana showed an incredible naivete in his final remarks about the press not giving bu$h a free pass. Had they done their job, we wouldn't be talking about him now.

Too bad that couldn't have been followed up on.

Madcat #33 I strongly disagree. What you describe is child abuse, and it is very wrong and illegal. When you treat a child with violence, it is cruel, and teaches the child violence in turn. I don't undertand how anyone could willingly inflict pain and suffering on a child.I don't like your thinking.

correction to #37 I don't understanding your thinking that way.

KIRA #26 You are an Artist! LOL

There is a huge difference between child abuse and spanking. For those who can not see the difference, I wont't help you to bail out your children when they start breaking the law. Proper behavior needs to be encouraged and enforced at a VERY early age.

As I stated before, children can not be reasoned with at a very young age, anybody who believes otherwise is not preparing their child for the real world.

Ok, imagine this. You have a child that is 1. Just starting to walk, talk and explore. You see the child reaching for something that has caught their interest. The item could possibly harm the child if they are able to reach it. Also, the item in question, can not be moved, made safe or otherwise be made inaccesible to the child.

What do you do.

1. Do you Politely ask the 1 year old not to touch the item and explain that it can hurt them and then do nothing else?

2. Move the child away from the item, and explain to them that they can be hurt, then do nothing else?

3. Continue to move the child away, first talking to it, them showing them that the item can injure them by a light spank on the bottom or hand, thereby reinforcing the idea that pain or injury may be involved with their intended course of action.

4. Put the 1 year old child in a corner on timeout?

If you do anything except number 3, then you are doing the child no good. The child has no idea what a real consequence to their action is, and if you think a 1 year old will sit in a corner and understand the concept, you have no children.

Now, fast forward to about 15 years old.

The child is now old enough to reason, and be reasoned with, however, if you choose items 1, 2 or 4, the child either does not care about consequences or is still not aware of them.

Child gets mad at a child at school, decides that the best course of action is to beat the hell out of the other child, gets suspended, you are sued for hospital costs on the child that was beat up.

Or, your child understands consequences, ignores the child that has made them mad, and learns another lesson in self control and proper behavior.

You have to understand that the behavior of your children is a direct reflection of your parenting skills. If you prepare them for the world, they will succede. If you dont, they may still succede, but you will never be thanked for it.

Madcat #40 I don't think you have debated many 1 y/o's, trust me, they will win! LOL

None of the above. Pick your baby up in your arms, and leave the room if necassary. Children understand many things at an early age, treat them with love, understanding and respect, they will learn these things, and return love understanding and respect.

YOU must have no children, or you would know these things.

ps Succede at what?

I gotta echo Arry's "#33 - Whazzat?"

I don't know what brought on that monologue about how to raise or not raise children, lol!...but mine are 20 & 22, were never spanked, and remain jail-free & aware of the difference between right & wrong.

In fact they recently got into a heated debate about the ethical ramifications of hanging out with people their age who seem to be racist, as well as another rather long discussion on the wisdom of voting vs. not voting, so I think they're doing alright.

I vividly recall that when my kids were growing up, the most problem-prone kids on our block were the ones whose parents used physical punishment.

But ummm....weren't we talking about ann coulter & republican ethical lapses??

Madcat, maybe you could do a study to determine if bush, cheney, rove, coulter, delay, etcetera (or bill clinton, michael moore, whomever!) were spanked as children. Otherwise, I just don't see your point, buddy.

LOL Bushw@cker! Possibly the truth makes it RUN AWAY!!! LOL!!

Fantastic work. Brad stayed calm and cool and played right vs. wrong instead of right vs. left, which is DEAD ON. And it is absolutely the way--if there is any--to get dittoheads to understand. Mentioning that if Hillary or any other Dem committed an impropriety they should be investigated, not apologized for.

Brad, this is EXACTLY the way to get America back on base. With these two recent rightie radio show appearances, I think you've done more to help logic and reason and accountability flourish in America than any elected democrat ever could. Hat's off to ya, pal. Keep at it!

And everyone don't forget to buy some cool brad blog swag in the Brad Store! I was wearing my Brad Blog T-shirt the other day and got a thumbs up and a "Brad Blog, all right!" from a passerby.

Did you ask her about the sex-change rumor?

Yes, ethics was the subject, if you could not see how my rant was related then I don't need to respond anymore.

In the case of the child raising. I do have a child, and I use a combination of both methods, and only resort to spanking in the rare case that time outs, groundings or talking to the child does not work.

About the ethical ramification of hanging out with racists. I find racists reprehensible and disgusting. To base judgement on color is rediculous. Also, basing judgement in sex or sexual preference is also wrong. I also want to make it perfectly clear that basing disdane for a person on religion is also wrong.

I have a question, how can somebody seem to be anything, they either are, or are not something. Was it ever determined that the person was a racist? Why stereotype somebody like that. If something bothers you, tell the person. If they do not respect you enough to stop a behavior then you can label them and ignore them.

I do have one other question about ethics. I can agree that Ronnie Earle is not a liberal attack dog out to get Delay, only if you can justify why he indicted 12 Democrats in previous cases. What caused all those Democrats to be indicted? Was it a Democrat working for Republicans? I seriously doubt that. So, was he indicting them for ethics issues? If so, then the idea that ethics is only a Republican problem is wrong, wrong, wrong.

JOAN, Sorry to be led off topic, seems i have an emotional liability for this issue, and this is a 'biggie' LOL Maybe handicap is a better word!

And i agree with you 100%, your kids sound wonderful, and you seem proud of them.

Madcat..

I don't agree that "liberal thinking" is what is wrong with this country, everything I've ever seen points back to ONE root cause.. Corperate America...

The average person in this country has to work much much longer every week to have a "comparible wage" to what they could make 30 years ago. Families are needing more and more to have BOTH parents working (sometimes 3 full time jobs between the 2 parents) to be able to afford "a nice lifestyle" (one defined by the corperations.. "you need a new this or that.. or disposable thingymabop that kills our planet... or upgraded whatwoozits and whatnots"). That leaves less and less time with children.. less time to teach them right from wrong.. to educate them on some matters.. When you have a single-parent household, it's much worse, and the quality of living tends to be much lower (for ~40% of our society, I'd say they are in hardship (or worse) when it's a single-parent home... hardship being having to tell yourself and children "no" to a lot of things that you see "other people" with all the time). So what? you say? well, being human beings and all, our NATURE causes us to rail against such things (act out, be bad, get mean, etc). Religion is a great method of controlling that part of our nature (thou shalt not covet.. or you will burn in hell for ever.. never mind the lack of proof of an afterlife..).

The problem isn't thinking it's wrong to hit children.. hitting children outside of VERY specific guidelines -is- wrong. It -does- encourage violence.. and the -average- person is likely to be doing more harm than good with their physical punishment techniques. Personally, I'm all FOR spanking.. BUT, if it's not done RIGHT and done SPARINGLY, it loses all effectiveness. Teachers have NO right to physically touch children, not in my book. I remeber being paddled in school because the kid next to me pushed my books off my desk and I said "stop that" out loud. -I- got paddled because the teacher didn't like me being loud (the other kid got paddled for pushing my books off the desk). Personally, I don't think it was reasonable to punish ME for telling someone to stop violating my space and my rights.. but that's just me. Teachers are not all that bright, in my expierence. Getting a Teaching Degree is laughably easy compared to other technical degrees. Most people I've met that are teachers leave a lot to be desired, and they distinctly lack the good judgment (in my book) to decide if and when to become physical with a student.. that's the parent's job, not what amounts to an extension of the government. If you want parents to be able to spend more time with their kids, to build better relationships, to do more in raising their kids "properly", then get them home more.. keep them around their kids more.. let them spend more time bonding with their babies when they are born (not going back to work after 3 or 4 months and leaving the baby with "care-givers"). To do that, you have to FIX the economic model in this country. You have to make it so MOST people can have one parent working full time and the other parent being there when the kids get home from school.. be there to interact with their kids instead of having the TV or Video Games be their sitters (and thus information providers).. or worse yet, only have their peers for information.

Being "compassionate" and understanding that being physical isn't the only (or even the best.. or even good, in most cases) way to handle something doesn't seem to be a bad thing to me. The problem is, for it to be effective (the no-hitting policy), you have to have the right environment.. and our country's economic model needs to change for that to be the case for most Americans. The addage "spare the rod and spoil the child" comes from a time when women were property (as were children to a degree) and we didn't know anywhere near as much about psychology as we do now.

As to your point about "something dangerous for a 1yr old that you can't move".. bullshit.. rebuild your house if you have to.. put up doors or gate off the area or what ever. There is NEVER an excuse to having dangerous things around babies.. if you can't figure out how to baby-proof your house, or afford to do it, then you REALLY shouldn't even have kids. Though, isn't that one of the underlying problem? people who really shouldn't have kids are having them anyway?

Saw a woman on the bus the other day (took a 24 hour Greyhound ride this weekend).. 3 babies.. all about 9 months apart.. all by herself.. Now, not knowing her situation, I had to ask my self.. "how do you NOT figure out how to keep your legs closed after the second baby?" What I was postulating was, if you have a baby.. married or not.. having a second immedialtey after means a LOT of work ahead of you (one baby is hard enough for 3 years, now you have 4 years of 2 babies?). But to have a 3rd? A full time stay at home mom with a hubby making a LOT of money to provide for the family.. -that- would -still- be a nightmare.. Why would someone have 3 babies all at ome time? That's not being responsible, yet she has that "right" so long as she's not infringing on the rights of others. Though, I'd guess with 3 kids and on a Greyhound, she's not likely being self-sufficient and is likely on State aid. Here's part of my problem with her and her babies.. With the oldest at about 2 1/2 yrs old, he would get fidgety on occasion.. Not causing a problem for the most part (they were very well behaved kids, actually). But, if he slunk down in his chair or started poking his sister (the middle baby), his mom would lean over and hit him 4 or 5 times and say "get back in that chair" or "stop hitting your sister".. Interestingly enough, when she would tell him to "get in that chair" and -not- hit him, she would say it 4 or 5 times before she leaned in to hit him (sometimes the hitting didn't occur and he got in the chair anyway.. he averted the consequences of his actions). The hitting was never hard.. no crying from it.. BUT, that child is learning that if you have something "important" to say, or if you "really mean it", there is a PHYSICAL component that goes with the words. Do you want him to be your boss some day? You show up to a work site and he's trying to explain something serious and isn't sure if you are listening so he smacks you up side the head while he's talking to you? Or should he tell his wife to make dinner while applying a back-hand because he's "serious and she needs to know it"?

Oh, and I have to mostly agree with Nana.. hitting -any- child under 4 or 5 (when they pretty much get language and are on the road to "reason") does nothing but serve as a means of "aversion therapy" which puts you on a very fine line to teaching them like the lady on the bus was teaching her son.. Babies respond VERY well to just words and facial expressions.. kind of like the REST of the animals in the world.. a little gnashing of the teeth and a growl is all it takes to let the baby know what it's doing isn't right. UNLIKE the rest of the animal world, we can reason much better as we get older. So, you don't want that baby grabbing something hot? don't get anything hot get near your baby.. that's YOUR job as a parent.. Don't have the time or resources to PROPERLY care for your baby? then don't have babies.. period. Think people should be able to have babies all willy-nilly when ever they want? then change our economic system to allow for parents to be better able to properly raise their babies.

It's a vicious circle, but being physical isn't the best or only (or even good) solution. Just because someone changes their "expert opinion" to "fit the times" doesn't mean their "new position" is better than their last, it means they see how the RIGHT thing takes too much effort and are trying to find a way to mitigate the damage. Calling on fixing the problem (our lack of ability for -most- parents to have the time needed to properly raise their children) won't get anything done. Our nature has all of us "wanting" what everyone else has.. so much so that even the poor folks don't want to pull off the blinders and see how screwed up our system is.. if they did that, then they would have to lose that dream of being a CEO and being a millionare. The -fact- is, 90% (rough guess on that number, but probably pretty close) or our country will -never- be a CEO, and 70% or so will never be "management" and have access to "upper-middle" class. Hell, only about 40% of America is in "middle class" at all, and that number seems to be dropping into "lower class" and poverty faster and faster.. which means less and less -real- chances to properly raise children.

As to the original comment about "put any lefty with Rush and Rush will tear them up too" is just ignorant. Rush has no position of validity.. most of what he says are based on the spin and flat out lies of the right-wing. Anyone that knows the topics going in could hand him his ass too, if he'd let them get in a word otherwise. Saw the clip of Donahue and O'Riely.. what a joke.. in true form, the Right-wing starts screaming and finger-wagging when their little lies are torn apart or the truth is slammed in their faces. The pertinant question was "do you encourage YOUR children to go fight your war?" and the pathetic response was "I have a nephew who signed up, don't you denegrate his service!!!".. uh.. moron? that's not YOUR kids, and we're not talking about people stupid enough to volunteer.. he asked about O'Riely's kids.. and the answer never came, just a lot of shouting from Bill.. what a tool.. just like Rush. The thing about Right-wingers and debates is, as soon as they are falling down the well, they change the subject to something they hope you don't have all the facts on (or just scream about liberals and aliens.. what's with that, anyway?)

The right-wing has no validity and anyone with even a smidgen of sense can see that. They lie, distract, diffuse, and when all that fails, bring in aliens? to try and make a valid point look farcikle (sp).. They can't stand on their own merits once it's brought to core points. I've not seen a right-winger YET be able to stand up to a pre-designated debate with someone that was able to muster up some decent research. While I have some problems with "extreme liberals", they tend to be truely "compassionate" about their desire to fix the world. Conservatives live in a dream world where "if everyone did it this way, life would be grand!".. sure it would, but then you have to work toward a world that ALLOWS everyone to "act this way". Saying it and doing it are 2 different things, and making laws that try to force "belifes" on people is anti-American (go read your Constitution if you don't believe me). I also take issue with the bulk of Conservative support being the bible. Seems that's where conversations go when the "wouldn't it be nice" point breaks down ..

Well.. for "generic" ethics points..

MOST of us here would LOVE to see Democrats being indicted, punished, and removed from office.. IF they do something illegal or seriously questionable.. That's why we cheer in the streets when someone from the most corrupt group in Washington (hell, from my expierence, anyone under 40 who's a Repug) get's nailed.

Today, for me, the litmus test is "if you got into politics and your 'family' comes from money (or came into money recently, like Clinton)", you're likely someone I don't want in Government.. why? Cause you don't live in the same world as MOST Americans.. and you likely facny the "financial markets" as the way to judge "American prosperity".. Perosonally, I judge our prosperity by how many people are on welfare or unemployed (not to be confused with the government's idea of "unemployment rate" which uses the people receiving unemployment as a baseline). The trade deficit I think is important.. getting our Industrial Base back.. and perhaps becoming a world leader in "the right thing to do" with pollution and reclimation of waste and the like.. As it is, rich folks making more money is all that our system cares about (on almost every level).. and, again, for me.. anyone in -that- mindset isn't likely to be "a decent human being" and want to make this country better, they are likely to be willing to bend the rules to make sure they get theirs.. kind of like the gangsters and drug dealers in the lowest portion of our society.. they just wear different suits to work, but they are all cut from the same cloth.

Damn! I just wrote a long comment & lost it...will try to re-do...

Madcat,
I don't recall anyone here saying that ethics is only a republican problem. I, Brad & others here have said repeatedly that anyone who breaks the law should be held accountable: republican, democrat or whatever.

It's just that in my opinion...and I'm far from alone in this assessment...republican transgressions in recent years have been coming thick & fast, and far outweigh, in scope & seriousness, democratic lapses.

Re the racist question: young people joke alot, and it was unclear in this instance whether these "seemingly racist" remarks were serious or just kind of a creepy attempt at humor. They were not people I or my children know well, and in any case things are not always clearly "black or white", no pun intended.

Nana,
No problem...I don't think it's so far off-topic, really.
And thank you! Yes, I'm very proud of my children: they're smart, well-spoken, well-informed, creative, funny (jeez, do I sound enough like a mom?!) and gainfully-employed (thank god!). And their sense of ethics is, I think, intact.
(They're both beautiful, too, but I can't take credit for that, hahaha!)

One last bit to Madcap:
I'm glad to hear you say that judging someone according to color, religion or sexual preference is wrong. I agree & that is what I taught my kids. I'm thankful they feel that way, too, now that they're adults.
Maybe you have more in common with people here than first met the eye.

Savantster - I tend to agree with most of your thoughts in both of your statements. Most of what I said was hypothetical postulation designed to prove a point about certain aspects of life. For instance, the child getting to the hot item that will hurt them was hypothetical. There are times where you are not in control of a situation and must teach the child that they have to be responsible for their own actions, because there are consequences. The idea that you can always effect the outcome of everthing that occurs when you are a parent is not realistic. Self reliance is key to a childs development. Real world example - My child was with Grandma, Aunt, Aunt's Husband 2 cousins 1 older, 1 younger and a child of a family friend. My child who has been told, and had it explained ad infinitum that they have to be careful and think about what they are doing at all times. Well, once again, she did not heed our warnings and instructions, and she fell off a playset at a park and broke her arm. There was absolutely nothing that either her mother or me could have done, nor could any of the family members there have changed the outcome of this situation, she got hurt as a consequence of her own actions, and please do not state that she should not have been there playing, that would just be silly. Things happen which we as parents have no control over. That is life.

Regarding talk show hosts, I have seen both sides of the aisle not allow guests to get a word in. A good example is Hannity and Combs. When there is a republican on, Hannity lets the person talk and Combs interupts to get his point across, if the guest is a Democrat, Sean interupts and Combs is the nice guy. The problem with having people of such differing beliefs debating something is that their positions are based entirely on the spin that makes their side look better. Usually the two sides have warped the truth so far that neither of them really understand what is really happening, and thats when the shouting starts. Some just have the ability to justify their misconceptions better then the other. Therefore it only appears that one person is calm and one is emotional. I would suspect that if you really got down to it, the one that can justify their misguided position better is more in need of a reality check then the one that is having trouble argueing their side. That indicates that they may not be sure about what the real deal is, but are trying to make their point heard anyway.

Pointing out how silly these arguements seem to me was the whole idea here. I listen to both 'Conservative' and 'Progressive' Hosts, and the funny part is this. They sound the same, but one is facing the other way. One says, no, one says yes, one says more, one says less. Very rarely do I see or hear either side agreeing, come on, that would be bad for ratings.

Regarding government. We need to get the politicians out of politics. We need to get the special interest groups out of there also. Force the elected representatives of the people make decisions of the people and by the people that put them there to represent them. This two party system was not what the Founders had in mind. Ideas are being rejected out of hand, because of partisanship, and the people they are representing no longer have a say in the matter. Elections are won by those with more money, and by who can slime who the most and make it stick. I don't really care for what either side did in 2004, but I have to say the GWB at least had a plan that he told us about, Kerry really didn't say whay he would do, just that he would do it better then Bush. Another example is the race for my states Govenor. There are three people running, a Rep, a Dem and an Independent. Based on what they say about each other, none of them deserve to be elected. So, what is the real story? How can you really tell who to vote for? It is going to be a tough decision for me this time.

Suffice it say, I don't think any Politician has the right to complain about the ethics of another Politician. There is no such thing as an honest one anymore. Any arguements otherwise are pointless.

Madcat --- don't have time to address all the points I would like to right now on the topic of "Big Brother Watching & Limiting Freedom & Personal Responsibility" but I do want to say that I cannot agree with your statement that "I listen to both 'Conservative' and 'Progressive' Hosts, and the funny part is this. They sound the same, but one is facing the other way" --- there is a HUGE difference in the method of ATTACK by the (faux) Conservatives. They are vicious, mean and spew a lot of vitriol. I've listened for a LONG time and you can't tell me it's otherwise.

PS Madcat --- When I first started listening to these guys I was NON-PARTISAN. I still am. There is a definite toxicity coming from the (faux) Conservatives that is not coming from the other side. It's just not.

Sorry, I have seen plenty of vemon being spewed by both sides. Whether it is face to face or just to the audience. Its there, and alive.

Well, we can agree to disagree

"There are times where you are not in control of a situation and must teach the child that they have to be responsible for their own actions, because there are consequences."

There are 2 sepperate points here.. First, saying there are times when things are "not under your control".. That's why I pointed to your "hot item".. that you -can- control, despite how tough it might be (buying a new stove that is farther than 6" off the ground, for example.. despite your stove being built in and the ceiling only 4" over the stove.. rip out the wall, build it taller, buy a taller stove.. OR, keep the baby out of the kitchen.. simple as that).

Second, being responsible for their own actions. Smacking a hand reaching for a hot item does NOT teach them to be "responsible for their actions", nor does it 'reasonably' teach them about consequences.. Aversion Therapy only teaches "don't do that or I will hit you".. Your earlier association of "they will connect the smacking of the hand reaching for a hot item (giving you the bennifit of the doubt since you were talking about spanking, which wouldn't apply to teaching about 'pain with that action' anyway) is to imply something occuring "despite" being able to reason. At 1 or 2, you are basically using Pavlovian techniques.. Again, given our connection to animals and our ability to understand tone, tennor, and facial expressions, just grabbing your baby and going "NO! NO!" with a scoul... then moving away from the 'hot item' and consoling the baby -should- be enough for the -average- human to understand that the "hot thing is bad".. you don't need to get physical (in that instance).

As for you daughter falling off the swing.. Here's the deal.. All kids WILL do things that are BAD for them.. it's in their nature. Yes, you can talk till you are BLUE in the face, and they will STILL do things 'bad'.. period, no question. But, guess what? That's how they LEARN.. Hitting a child does NOT teach them that "this is bad and can seriously hurt you".. you are using "aversion techniques" that only associate "one specific thing" to pain.. Know what your daughter LEARNED from falling off the swing and breaking her arm? One, that YOU should be trusted in your judgement when you say "A can cause B.. don't do A".. Two, actually LEARNED that "horsing around on the swing can hurt you".. ala, the broken arm. Three, if she's smart, that 'horsing around on anything that puts her over 5 feet off the ground can hurt".. and now you don't to lecture (or spank) her -every time- she doing things at altatude.. she learned a painful, yet COMMON lesson about gravity.. right?

The overall point is, you made a very broad statement about "being physical" with the "teaching process" of children. I -still- stand behind the premis that a LOT of kids -never- need to have -any- physical punishment for them to "learn and do the right thing".. Getting physical is an escallation of OTHER problems, and once you find yourself "needing" to spank (or other physical punishments) to get order, you really need to revisit your entire life.. seriously.. And, I was spanked as a kid.. but only when I got way out of line (normally).. at one point though, the spankings started increasing in frequency (my mom was going through a chemical inbalance from some medical conditions).. it got to the point where the thought process (for me) became.. well, I know I'm gonna get spanked for this.. and I just don't care.. the spanking won't be reasonable, the offence is'nt that big of a deal.. and the pain only lasts a few hours.. So, how does getting physical matter in that context? I FULLY understood the consequences.. and didn't care.. I felt the punishment was unreasonable and survivable.. what, should she have switched to full fledged beating? torture? to have her way over something that in the greater scheme of things was pointless? And, where do you draw the line from a LEGAL standpoint? Do rich folks with lawyers and friends get to hit their kids more? Poor folks go to jail for one slap, rich folks can break bones "because it had to get escalated to prove the point"?

And for our "politics".. trying to say that the "left" has no valid position because they get into shouting matches with the right, or imply that the "left" is just as bad as the right in "debates" is to distract from the underlying point. Not to mention, when I say "here is the definition of blue.. this specific range of wavelengths of light.. the sky falls perfectly in this range, therefore it's blue".. and someone says "no, that's not blue.. your definition of blue is without merrit, I don't agree with it".. then what? I'm wrong because I pull out the dictionary and science books to prove my point and this guy trys to talk bout camels? and I cut him off and bring him back to "blue"? so now I have no valid point? because I cut him off?

Yes, "both sides" tend to get into pissing matches.. both sides tend to cut people off.. the DIFFERENCE is, the "left" tends to do it to keep things ON TRACT, the right does it to confuse and distract.. the left tends to use facts pertinant to the conversation while the right tends to use facts that only paint an impression of their point. The left tends to argue in favor of human beings and compassion, the right tends to argue in favor of dollar bills and religious precepts (that they don't practice, but use to try and sway the religious viewers). To imply that the left is just as nuts as the right when it comes to ideology is laughable. Sure, there are differing opinions about how to get to the same goal, but we aren't fighting for the same goals.. the left is fighting for a better world for everyone, the right is fighting for a better world for "the right people"..

And, when it comes to politicians and campaigns, you and I