... years--and did it--could likely develop that technology. Bullshit... There is not a thread of evidence to back up your bullshit, except for the famous "liberal-think" fantasy. We do not need that anti-American socialist anywhere near our White House. (Hint: calling someone names doesn't advance your cause.) Accurately describing someone is hard for you to understand, isn't it... That's OK, you appear to...

...available is because of cheap, subsidized oil. Take that away, and the country which decided to put a man on the moon in ten years--and did it--could likely develop that technology. We do not need that anti-American socialist anywhere near our White House. (Hint: calling someone names doesn't advance your cause.) Accurately describing someone is hard for you to understand, isn't it... That's OK, you appear to be...

... technology is not available now. Maybe in 30-50 years, but not now. You really need to read more, and quit relying on the kos/moveon/huffy kooks to get your info. We do not need that anti-American socialist anywhere near our White House. (Hint: calling someone names doesn't advance your cause.) Accurately describing someone is hard for you to understand, isn't it... That's OK, you appear to be a liberal, which means you ...

... the only possible answer, and the longer we avoid moving in that direction the worse it's going to be for us. Too bad we don't have a free market. If we did there would be all sorts of companies bringing alternative energy to market. We do not need that anti-American socialist anywhere near our White House. Which one? The views of both choices from the establishment party best fit the definition of national socialism.

... Just ignore the cancer rates and vote Plame/McCain! It is the only choice that makes any sense. Um, sure. (Choke, chortle, cough, snigger, gasp, chuckle...) We do not need that anti-American socialist anywhere near our White House. (Hint: calling someone names doesn't advance your cause.) No one wants a snooty Harvard lawyer as our President. At last count, roughly 50%% of Americans *do* want that "snooty Harvard ...

...>anything up for tomorrow anyway. If we don't start drilling our own oil and don't start increasing our refining capabilities, you are correct. Just ignore the cancer rates and vote Plame/McCain! It is the only choice that makes any sense. We do not need that anti-American socialist anywhere near our White House. No one wants a snooty Harvard lawyer as our President. We had a lawyer in the 90's. He was worthless. Mike Smith

| | Why should they have supported someone like Joe Lieberman who doesn't | | embrace the policies of the collective? | | "Collective" Nice socialist term you are using Cyrus. | | Oh, cut the shit David; you know damn well what I meant. Yes socialism. If he doesn't | want to support the agenda of the Dems, Socialism. If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how...

... in a Presidential elections. "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist

... people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist | | For a little more substance: | <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westbrook_Pegler> | Westbrook Pegler | | Interest ...

... will of the collective. "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist