16 Responses

1. 

   1)

   danielle said on 6/30/2004 @ 12:35pm PT: [Permalink]

   Hey Brad!!! Glad to hear you’re all set for a great fourth of july weekend. I just wanted to check in and see how the radio show/reality ventures are going. Hope to hear from you soon.

   Peace!
   Danielle

2. 

   2)

   Bryan said on 7/6/2004 @ 11:03am PT: [Permalink]

   So Edwards is the man. At 51, he doesn’t look a day past 44. They expect Kerry’s likeability ratings to climb .08%, imagine that.

   And what’s with all the Bush ads/photo-ops with McCain? Are we being primed for a new running mate, sans heart blockage?

3. 

   3)

   Paul said on 7/7/2004 @ 7:44am PT: [Permalink]

   If there is any other running mate, it would most likely be Rudy Giuliani.

   Two top liberals (#1 and #4) will not fly with mainstream America. Clinton said yesterday that Edwards will help those who do not know Kerry yet. Once they really get to know Kerry, he will be rejected. Polls show it close now but I still think it could be very bad for the Democrats, I mean, liberals.

   If "women" vote for Edwards just because he is good-looking, then that is a good argument for women not to vote, as they could not for so many years.

   Still, the Dems seem to have no vision or ideas for the future other than to turn all foreign policy over to the inept UN.

   It’s the economy stupid! And the economy is doing extremely well and all signs are indicating that people know it.

4. 

   4)

   Paul said on 7/7/2004 @ 8:37am PT: [Permalink]

   Bradley, if you want to blog about Texas Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson calling yesterday for the UN to monitor our elections because they were stolen in 2000, then I will have plenty to say about that.

5. 

   5)

   Bryan said on 7/7/2004 @ 9:21am PT: [Permalink]

   ‘If "women" vote for Edwards just because he is good-looking, then that is a good argument for women not to vote, as they could not for so many years.’

   Put your club away Paul, just because you’re bigger doesn’t mean you’re smarter.

   ‘It’s the economy stupid! And the economy is doing extremely well and all signs are indicating that people know it.’

   Headline today in the Christian Science Monitor: ‘AMERICANS PUT DOWN THEIR WALLETS — As economy generates fewer jobs than expected, consumer spending and confidence are down.’

   From the article: "Lack of consumer enthusiasm is particularly pronounced in car lots and some chain stores, such as Wal-Mart and Target."

   Aren’t those largely Midwestern/Southern chains? Perhaps there are those outside of your home that aren’t as fortunate, even within your community.

   Paul, numbers do not spin. You should travel to New York sometime, where the deficit clock is running and running — meaning that it’s getting BIGGER. 100,000 less jobs were created in June than May, and while that doesn’t mean as much for your 401K, it does mean quite a bit to those attempting to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

   So by all means, let’s keep Bush in office. Then your friends can get another $300 tax cut, which they will use to pay down personal debt, rather than buy something at Wal-Mart to boost the economy.

6. 

   6)

   Bryan said on 7/7/2004 @ 9:45am PT: [Permalink]

   Houston Breast Feeders Unite!

   http://story.news.yahoo.com/new...ife_nursing_dc

   ‘If people do not want to see women nursing their children, "Don’t look," Doyle-Madrid told the Chronicle.’

   Agreed, feed away! Yet natural act or no isn’t there an etiquette clause somewhere? Emily Post? John Ashcroft?

7. 

   7)

   jaime said on 7/7/2004 @ 5:08pm PT: [Permalink]

   Rudy Giuliani as running mate?

   Paul the flip flopper. Growing up in and having strong ties to NYC, I know a bit about Mr. Rudy Guliani that Paul is too lazy to own find out for himself. These are thing that would not square up to his "judeo-CHRISTIAN" conservative American Values, like his RECENT ugly divorce with Donna Hanover, his questionable health (ass cancer), names like Louima and Diallo, he is AGAINST Bush’s gay bashing amendment.

   "Two top liberals (#1 and #4)"

   -Dear Lord, Paul, don’t you have ANY original thoughts. The #1 and #4 "stat" are the EXACT same words and emphasis as Hannity, Rush, Elder, Ingraham, Hewitt, Rantel, etc. etc. Can you say "Paulie want a cracker"?

8. 

   8)

   johnhp said on 7/8/2004 @ 5:19am PT: [Permalink]

   Paul,

   i don’t think the Republicans would take Giuliani for a simple reason: he will be devoured by the neandercon base. This is not because of his divorce or his bout with cancer (VP crashcart is proof against this), but because of certain issues related to his divorce. If you peruse the neandercon sites you will understand that they are insinuating Giuliani is a homosexual (concerned women for America) and use words like crossdresser and pedophile. His sexuality is also a topic over at the freep site. In short the neandercon base will not support him.

9. 

   9)

   Paul said on 7/8/2004 @ 7:26am PT: [Permalink]

   > In short the neandercon base will not support him.

   I never said they would. Cheney will be the Veep.

10. 

    10)

    Paul said on 7/8/2004 @ 8:02am PT: [Permalink]

    Bryan –

    > So by all means, let’s keep Bush in office. Then your friends can get another $300 tax cut, which they will use to pay down personal debt, rather than buy something at Wal-Mart to boost the economy

    So, taxing people more are going to make them spend more and get them a job? That makes no sense!!!!!!

    Paying money to a credit card also creates jobs and you are paying for things you bought at Wal-Mart the day before. Debt is not a bad thing. My mortgage is 4.25% and I am getting 15% – 30% on my investments. Should I pay off my house? Heck no! You really do not understand economics and perhaps, capitalism. If liberals are really socialists, then they would not understand capitalism, or at least, hate it.

    > 100,000 less jobs were created in June than May

    Who creates jobs? The president? The government? People create jobs. People start companies. Just think about all of the millions of aborted babies (oh sorry – a liberal sacrament) who could have started companies and hired folks and paid taxes and bought goods and services and voted Democrat.

    You liberals also always attack the big evil corporations who hire 20% of the public. How can you liberals live with yourselves and the hypocrisy?

    I have been working 19 years since college which I paid for myself making $3 an hour. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush never hired me and they will not fire me either. I am tired of those who blame a president, any president, for not having a job.

11. 

    11)

    johnhp said on 7/8/2004 @ 9:11am PT: [Permalink]

    Paul,

    i was responding to your hypothetical point.

12. 

    12)

    Bryan said on 7/9/2004 @ 9:19am PT: [Permalink]

    ‘So, taxing people more are going to make them spend more and get them a job? That makes no sense!!!!!!’

    Actually Paul, when you tax people based on their % income, and evenly redistribute the wealth, you can offer a hand to those industrious few at the bottom (like, apparently, you) and enable them to rise and become better citizens. You can further education, provide better housing, fund social programs and contribute to welfare and the ever-declining social security, move toward affordable healthcare for all citizens. Heck, you might even balance a budget, or (this should suit your fancy) use the extra cream to go to war and stop evil!

    I find it lovely that such a ‘Christian’ is such a Darwin. How can you conservatives live with yourselves and the hypocrisy?

    And your house is not an asset until it’s paid off. Some debt is fine, but our national debt has grown exponentially, and individual debt is at an unmanageable all-time high. It’s not the same world you grew up in Paul, and you might consider that. You might consider a lot of things about America’s future, though I doubt you will.

13. 

    13)

    Brad said on 7/10/2004 @ 1:43pm PT: [Permalink]

    Bryan asked:
    "And what’s with all the Bush ads/photo-ops with McCain? Are we being primed for a new running mate, sans heart blockage?"

    Well, there may be a new running mate (if the Republicans knew what was good for them), but I don’t think that’s what the ads/photo-ops were about in this case.

    They were "McCain likes me better than you, Kerry!".

    The irony being, of course, Bush absolutely trashed John McCain as a human being when he was running against him in 2000.

    Apparently now though, he’d rather have an "insane man" on his side, than on his opponents.

14. 

    14)

    Brad said on 7/10/2004 @ 1:47pm PT: [Permalink]

    JohnHP said:
    "i don’t think the Republicans would take Giuliani for a simple reason: he will be devoured by the neandercon base. This is not because of his divorce or his bout with cancer (VP crashcart is proof against this), but because of certain issues related to his divorce."

    He is also Pro-Choice if I recall correctly. Won’t go down well either with those Neandercons. But, of course, would help get him "re"-elected!

    So they’ll stick with Darth Cheney thanks (hopefully!)

15. 

    15)

    Brad said on 7/10/2004 @ 1:51pm PT: [Permalink]

    Paul spewed:
    "So, taxing people more are going to make them spend more and get them a job?"

    Um, no. I don’t believe anybody mentioned such a thing on this thread either for that matter.

    However, taxing the Middle Class less, and those who make over 200k more would be good for everyone now, wouldn’t it?

16. 

    16)

    Donna Nolan said on 3/9/2005 @ 11:15am PT: [Permalink]

    Hi there, Did you know there is a band named Freedom Reign?