The GOP may have thought that the stimulus bill was socialist, but they have Senator Graham has no problem supporting the nationalization of banks.

Yeah, and he's also just dug his own political grave, along with Specter and those 2 other loons from Maine.

Senator Collins and Snowe are from my home state, and I'm proud to have voted for them, the don't vote party line every time a vote goes to the senate unlike some of the sheeps that seem to be put up on a pedestal for voting party lines every time or being "reliable" repubs or dems.

/ Wish all politicians were independent and actually voted for what they believed was right, or at least not sheep that vote whichever their party leaders tell them to...
// BTW: Not trying to troll, just stating my opinion.

You lost me, subby, at "The GOP may have thought..."

Republicans: It isn't Socialism when we do it!

oldebayer: You lost me, subby, at "The GOP may have thought..."

Heyo!

GAT_00: Republicans: It isn't Socialism when we do it!

Technically, the Republican plan isn't socialism. It's corporatism, which is a weird fusion of socialism and fascism. As bad as that is, it DOES work to get your economy back on track. You just have to give up your freedom.

Give us about 2 years though, and people will sign up in droves to live the corporitist lifestyle.

We would benefit greatly right now from intelligent, honest people on both sides of the debate, inlcuding intelligent, honest people opposed to Obama and the Democrat's plans.

The fact that our system doesn't allow for that, and instead dictates that the only people in positions of power opposed to the ruling party are the hypocritical hacks who survived through luck or institutional inertia when the rest of their former ruling party was tossed out on its ass, is indicative of a problem possibly more fundamental than Congress's and the President's conviction that they can fix everything if only they have enough power and newly-printed money. The opposition in our duopoly is so utterly discredited that their flailing around is doing more to help than hinder Obama by providing a negative counter-example. Yet by holding on to their entrenched positions of power and authority- both electorally and within the GOP- they crowd out any potential new blood from getting near a leadership position. They're muddying the waters with their blatant hypocrisy while at the same refusing to go away and let someone untainted by the Bush disaster provide a coherent, reasonable voice of opposition to Obama.

It's not just opponents of Obama who are harmed by this- out entire public discourse has become dysfunctional become of it. The Republicans just flail randomly while the Democrats attack any attempt to suggest there even is serious disagreement, and because of it our collective mechanism for critical thinking, the public discourse (which has long been deeply flawed anyway, in large part due to similar problems of duopoly) has simply fallen apart at the seams. People who are honestly opposed to the bailouts and "stimulus" are denied any mechanism for forming a coherent, viable leadership, while supporters of the regime approach to the economy at the very least are harmed by the amount of corruption and other ills bred by power not challenged to justify itself with rational, reasoned argument.

I'm getting whiplash by all the sides in this particular drama. I wish they'd stop that.

Youcouldntfindme: Senator Collins and Snowe are from my home state, and I'm proud to have voted for them, the don't vote party line every time a vote goes to the senate unlike some of the sheeps that seem to be put up on a pedestal for voting party lines every time or being "reliable" repubs or dems.

/ Wish all politicians were independent and actually voted for what they believed was right, or at least not sheep that vote whichever their party leaders tell them to...
// BTW: Not trying to troll, just stating my opinion.

Snowe is easily one of my favorite Senators currently holding office. I was proud to vote for her when I lived in Maine, and I think she's been a shining example of what the GOP should stand for.

And Susan Collins has likewise been good for Maine, and the party. Even if the party doesn't like that both Senators from Maine have been following in the footsteps of Bill Cohen for tough and long thinking Republicans from the north.

That they vote their minds and hearts, as opposed to "official" party line, to me, shows their integrity. Snowe opposed NAFTA when not enough Senators could run up and kiss ass for treaty that would treat their states like a cat treats a litter box, and Snowe voted against it. Collins has likewise shown some backbone in representing her state.

The real RINOs are the folks who put ideology--and one that is anathema to the principles of the party and Conservatism--before the needs of the country and their states.

That Maine has kept women in the Senate, and Conservatives no less, should say something of the state. And their commitment to their constituents.

Weaver95: Technically, the Republican plan isn't socialism. It's corporatism, which is a weird fusion of socialism and fascism. As bad as that is, it DOES work to get your economy back on track. You just have to give up your freedom.

Give us about 2 years though, and people will sign up in droves to live the corporitist lifestyle

Corporatism isn't so much a "mixture" of socialism and fascism as it is the economic doctrine of fascism (which itself has some socialist roots). Mussolini once declared that "What's good for Fiat is good for Italy"- sound familiar? Really, though, it's much older than even fascism. It's the same thinking that led monarchs in the dark ages to grant trade monopolies to guilds, or the mercantilism of the era of European imperialism with its protectionist trade measures and gov't-chartered monopoly foreign trade corporations. The modern legal notion of a "corporation" in fact evolved from such royally-chartered coercive monopolies (thus our Founder's propensity to trash talk "corporations" and "monopoly"), as the legal formula expanded to include just about all forms of collective endavour, particularly businesses.

You can call it mercantilism, protectionism, corporatism, crony capitalism, state-sponsored capitalism, or any other number of names. It's all basically the same thing- the government grants special privileges to certain groups of private individuals in exchange for increased control over them, and their support. Whether the actual initiative comes from the private side or the gov't side is largely irrelevant, the two quickly form a mutually supportive negative feedback loop. Thus you'll often see huge, multinational corporations lobbying in favor of stricter, more expensive government intervention in the economy. They'll get to write the legislation, which in any event will be much easier for them to comply with because of their size. See the example of Congress, in response to the China lead toy scare last year, passed a law at the behest of Mattel and Hasbro requring extensive new testing of toys for safety. Testing so prohibitively expensive that it effectively prohibits anyone who's not a huge, sprawling multinational corporation from making toys. The makers of all those cute little wooden railroad trains are rightly screaming bloody murder, but the law went into effect last week anyway. Whether it's a regulation, tax loophole, or bailout, it will inevitably benefit the biggest, most politically connected market players much more than the small, independent, politically powerless competitors who breed, either themselves or through the fear of competition they inspire, all the innovation and prosperity of the capitalist system.

Regardless of all those proclaiming the downfall of capitalism, our system is no closer to the freedom of laissez-faire than it is the false egalitarianism of socialism.

Churchill2004: Regardless of all those proclaiming the downfall of capitalism, our system is no closer to the freedom of laissez-faire than it is the false egalitarianism of socialism.

Interesting how you say "freedom of laissez-faire" and you say "false egalitarianism of socialism".

I'd be much more inclined to put a false in front of both or neither, but surely not one and not the other.

Churchill2004: Weaver95: Technically, the Republican plan isn't socialism. It's corporatism, which is a weird fusion of socialism and fascism. As bad as that is, it DOES work to get your economy back on track. You just have to give up your freedom.

Give us about 2 years though, and people will sign up in droves to live the corporitist lifestyle

Corporatism isn't so much a "mixture" of socialism and fascism as it is the economic doctrine of fascism (which itself has some socialist roots). Mussolini once declared that "What's good for Fiat is good for Italy"- sound familiar? Really, though, it's much older than even fascism. It's the same thinking that led monarchs in the dark ages to grant trade monopolies to guilds, or the mercantilism of the era of European imperialism with its protectionist trade measures and gov't-chartered monopoly foreign trade corporations. The modern legal notion of a "corporation" in fact evolved from such royally-chartered coercive monopolies (thus our Founder's propensity to trash talk "corporations" and "monopoly"), as the legal formula expanded to include just about all forms of collective endavour, particularly businesses.

You can call it mercantilism, protectionism, corporatism, crony capitalism, state-sponsored capitalism, or any other number of names. It's all basically the same thing- the government grants special privileges to certain groups of private individuals in exchange for increased control over them, and their support. Whether the actual initiative comes from the private side or the gov't side is largely irrelevant, the two quickly form a mutually supportive negative feedback loop. Thus you'll often see huge, multinational corporations lobbying in favor of stricter, more expensive government intervention in the economy. They'll get to write the legislation, which in any event will be much easier for them to comply with because of their size. See the example of Congress, in response to the China lead toy scare last year, passed a law at the behest of Mattel and Hasbro requring extensive new testing of toys for safety. Testing so prohibitively expensive that it effectively prohibits anyone who's not a huge, sprawling multinational corporation from making toys. The makers of all those cute little wooden railroad trains are rightly screaming bloody murder, but the law went into effect last week anyway. Whether it's a regulation, tax loophole, or bailout, it will inevitably benefit the biggest, most politically connected market players much more than the small, independent, politically powerless competitors who breed, either themselves or through the fear of competition they inspire, all the innovation and prosperity of the capitalist system.

Regardless of all those proclaiming the downfall of capitalism, our system is no closer to the freedom of laissez-faire than it is the false egalitarianism of socialism.

The dream of "free trade" has yet to be realized, and part of the problem we face, isn't restrictions on corporate citizens, but the choke hold that they have on our economy right now, as opposed to fair and free competition--something that scares the bejeebus out of the largest players in the markets, considering how much they've invested in getting regulations passed that favor them, and limit damages against them.

DamnYankees: Interesting how you say "freedom of laissez-faire" and you say "false egalitarianism of socialism".

I'd be much more inclined to put a false in front of both or neither, but surely not one and not the other

You might not like the results and thus oppose it, but scrupulous laissez-faire is exactly that- people being free to do what they want, excluding only violate the freedom of others. You might think it's utopian, unrealistic, unworkable, whatever, but it is logically consistent in that it advocates a logically self-consistent ideal of individual freedom (or, if you prefer a more neutral word, autonomy).

Socialism, on the other hand, is supposedly based on an absolute egalitarianism that is logically consistent only in its anarchist forms. Absolute egalitarianism is incompatible with the special privileges- specifically the monopoly on violence- which defines a state and its agents. Thus under any non-anarchist system purporting to be socialist, you inevitable get some kind of logical contortion akin to Animal Farm's "...but some animals are more equal than others." Anarcho-socialism is indeed an unworkable system in my opinion, but their theoretical application of their ideal- egalitarianism- is at least consistent. So they're the only socialists whose egalitarianism I wouldn't describe as "false".

hubiestubert: The dream of "free trade" has yet to be realized, and part of the problem we face, isn't restrictions on corporate citizens, but the choke hold that they have on our economy right now, as opposed to fair and free competition--something that scares the bejeebus out of the largest players in the markets, considering how much they've invested in getting regulations passed that favor them, and limit damages against them

Exactly. People who advocate more government in the name of bringing big corporations under control are operating on the false assumption that government and the big corporations are enemies rather than collaborators.

Churchill2004: You might not like the results and thus oppose it, but scrupulous laissez-faire is exactly that- people being free to do what they want, excluding only violate the freedom of others. You might think it's utopian, unrealistic, unworkable, whatever, but it is logically consistent in that it advocates a logically self-consistent ideal of individual freedom (or, if you prefer a more neutral word, autonomy).

It's not logically consistent, because pure autonomy is impossible. I don't even know what autonomy means outside of a system of power and laws to protect you.

Churchill2004: DamnYankees: Interesting how you say "freedom of laissez-faire" and you say "false egalitarianism of socialism".

I'd be much more inclined to put a false in front of both or neither, but surely not one and not the other

You might not like the results and thus oppose it, but scrupulous laissez-faire is exactly that- people being free to do what they want, excluding only violate the freedom of others. You might think it's utopian, unrealistic, unworkable, whatever, but it is logically consistent in that it advocates a logically self-consistent ideal of individual freedom (or, if you prefer a more neutral word, autonomy).

Socialism, on the other hand, is supposedly based on an absolute egalitarianism that is logically consistent only in its anarchist forms. Absolute egalitarianism is incompatible with the special privileges- specifically the monopoly on violence- which defines a state and its agents. Thus under any non-anarchist system purporting to be socialist, you inevitable get some kind of logical contortion akin to Animal Farm's "...but some animals are more equal than others." Anarcho-socialism is indeed an unworkable system in my opinion, but their theoretical application of their ideal- egalitarianism- is at least consistent. So they're the only socialists whose egalitarianism I wouldn't describe as "false".

In DamnYankees defense, while the idea of "scrupulous" laissez-faire is commendable, it has been likewise unworkable. In order to promote fair and equitable competition, there has always been the need to regulate trade from those who are less than scrupulous and who have only their own profit line in mind.

Ideally, regulation should promote fair and equitable business practice, while keeping mitts off to let the market sort itself out in pricing--while making for damn sure that monopolies and unfair structures that hamstring both the public and competition from exploitation.

Socialism, in theory isn't a bad idea--but in practice, it has wound up a damn stinker. Attempts to unfetter the market from all regulation has likewise wound up running afoul of opportunistic bastiches.

While both are interesting in theory, deep down, it boils down to a working system that promotes the welfare of society and those within it, as opposed to tying your government to naught but ideal principles.

submitter: The GOP may have thought that the stimulus bill was socialist, but they have no problem supporting the nationalization of banks

Duh!

Socialism is only Bad when it helps poor people.

Government saving shareholders? Carry on.

ndotseth: The GOP may have thought that the stimulus bill was socialist, but they have Senator Graham has no problem supporting the nationalization of banks.

Yeah, and he's also just dug his own political grave, along with Specter and those 2 other loons from Maine.

Mr. ndot? You DO know that your political ideology has been thoroughly discredited, right? I mean, you couldn't possibly believe that you and your ideological ilk have any credibility or moral authority whatsoever? You couldn't POSSIBLY be that stupid.

ndotseth: Yeah, and he's also just dug his own political grave, along with Specter and those 2 other loons from Maine.

ah yes the new GOP mantra "Party above all else". Nice to see they took lessons from Lenin and Stalin.

Nationalization and socialism are all well and good as long as it's the military or corporations who are getting the money. Dur.

WhyteRaven74: ah yes the new GOP mantra "Party above all else". Nice to see they took lessons from Lenin and Stalin.

I'm so glad that The Party has so handsomely rewarded Commisar Joe the Plumber for saying the right thing.

If I heard a Republican have anything to say except "Cut taxes for the rich!" or "LIBSLIBSLIBSLIBSLIIIIIIBBBBBSSS!" I'd pay attention to them. But I haven't so I won't.

GOP had no problem with Palin's socialism in Alaska when she was taxing the oil companies to generate the funds for those $5000 checks people received each year in the mail.

Churchill2004: Words mean what I want them to mean

To be master, eh?

Capitalism is great and all, in theory. But without socialism, our free market banks would have collapsed months ago. Literally. If you subtract the banks liabilities form its assets, these banks would have less than zero equity. And that is the funny thing. All these self proclaimed defenders of capitalism, like Glenn Beck are throwing sand in the face of socialism, as it's straining it's muscles as hard as it can, just trying to keep our capitalistic system above water. pretty ungrateful.

Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone? Dems and Repubs are two-sides of the same corrupt coin. They share the same exact goal: Increasing their power at the expense of the people. The only difference is how they do it.

ndotseth: The GOP may have thought that the stimulus bill was socialist, but they have Senator Graham has no problem supporting the nationalization of banks.

Yeah, and he's also just dug his own political grave, along with Specter and those 2 other loons from Maine.

Well, you're probably right- they'll get run over by Democrats in their next elections, especially if they get primaried out. See, the thing about this election (sadly or not) was that all the moderate, intelligent Republicans, almost bar none (only one I can think of that survived is the guy in WI-5, the one north of Sensenbrenner's district) got trampled on and run over by Democrats, and a few of the crazier Republicans did, too (like Virgil Goode and Marilyn Musgrave). So, the ones that are left aren't going to learn anything, they're just gonna further the party's demise.

And you're helping! Which is a good thing.

Enjoy what little time you have left of even semi-revelance.

Lindsay Graham is a reliable pinhead on some issues, just like McCain and Bush. He was all for illegal alien amnesty. His stance on anything doesn't necessarily mean "the GOP" is with him.

GAT_00: Republicans: It isn't Socialism when we do it!

Ta-da!

(And if they started using swastikas and goose-stepping around the House floor: It isn't fascism when WE do it!)

ucfknights: GOP had no problem with Palin's socialism in Alaska when she was taxing the oil companies to generate the funds for those $5000 checks people received each year in the mail.

I must have missed the memo when taxation became the exclusive province of socialism.

The founding fathers are spinning in their graves with the frequency of a dremel tool.

These politicians should be dragged out of the capitol building and strung up.

EAT A DICK

ndotseth: Yeah, and he's also just dug his own political grave, along with Specter and those 2 other loons from Maine.

If the GOP tries to get rid of Specter, Snowe and Collins, they'll create a filibuster-proof Democratic majority.

Churchill2004: We would benefit greatly right now from intelligent, honest people on both sides of the debate, inlcuding intelligent, honest people opposed to Obama and the Democrat's plans.

Very true, and let's let's not mince words here. Obama is intelligent and honest. Only some of the Democrats are. And the Republicans - with very few exceptions, notably hubiestubert - are stupid and dishonest.

ndotseth: The GOP may have thought that the stimulus bill was socialist, but they have Senator Graham has no problem supporting the nationalization of banks.

Yeah, and he's also just dug his own political grave, along with Specter and those 2 other loons from Maine.

Please, GOP bitter enders, please run a western Pennsylvania pitchfork waver against Specter, please. The Dems could use another seat.

As for Snowe and Collins, are you high? Both of them have their seats for as long as they want them, and when they do eventually retire the GOP won't see those seats again for 50 years.

LocalCynic: I'm so glad that The Party has so handsomely rewarded Commisar Joe the Plumber for saying the right thing.

*snort* well put :)

I just watched this segment.

Funniest part was where Chuck Shumer disagreed on nationaization.

It was like bizarro world, but cute.

Nationalization of banking won't work here. The Bush Administration attempted it in government through monarchization of the executive branch. A nationalized banking system would be like the three branches of government without their checks and balances; just one big agglomeration of segments separate in name only.

Two things need to be done regarding the banking system:

1. Reinstatement of the walls between banking, investment, and insurance. It was the toppling of these distinctions and allowing "financial" firms to do all three that is at the root of the crisis: if individual firms hadn't been allowed to write, insure, and buy and sell mortgages as investment vehicles, the house of cards would have been much more difficult to build.

2. Enforce the credo that "too big to fail" is "too big to exist." Finance isn't like durable goods like automobiles. They don't require a huge physical infrastructure investment to be viable. If the fall of a financial firm - a bank, investment firm, or insurance company - can begin a domino effect that could take down the world economy, that bank cannot be allowed to exist in that state.

DamnYankees: Churchill2004: You might not like the results and thus oppose it, but scrupulous laissez-faire is exactly that- people being free to do what they want, excluding only violate the freedom of others. You might think it's utopian, unrealistic, unworkable, whatever, but it is logically consistent in that it advocates a logically self-consistent ideal of individual freedom (or, if you prefer a more neutral word, autonomy).

It's not logically consistent, because pure autonomy is impossible. I don't even know what autonomy means outside of a system of power and laws to protect you.

Laissez-faire isn't generally anarchist, and is arguably incompatible with anarchism. It advocates a system of maximum reciprocal freedom supported and defended by a system of laws.


hubiestubert: In DamnYankees defense, while the idea of "scrupulous" laissez-faire is commendable, it has been likewise unworkable. In order to promote fair and equitable competition, there has always been the need to regulate trade from those who are less than scrupulous and who have only their own profit line in mind

Show me this race of angels hidden among men who are pure and good enough to be trusted with using force in order to suppress greed.

hubiestubert: Ideally, regulation should promote fair and equitable business practice, while keeping mitts off to let the market sort itself out in pricing--while making for damn sure that monopolies and unfair structures that hamstring both the public and competition from exploitation

Ideally, perhaps. But until we invent an incorruptible government, economic intervention will tend towards favoring oligarchy, because it's much easier for a government and an entrenched oligarchy to support each other in plundering the masses than for the government to maintain its ideal role of neutral arbitrator. The more power you place in the hands of the state, the more worthwhile you make it for business and other interests to corrupt it to their own gain. Particularly if, as is often the case, the only other option is ending up a victim of this public-private partnership.

hubiestubert: Socialism, in theory isn't a bad idea--but in practice, it has wound up a damn stinker

Socialism in theory was a horrific idea, and was even worse in practice.

hubiestubert: Attempts to unfetter the market from all regulation has likewise wound up running afoul of opportunistic bastiches

9 times out of 10 "deregulation", "privatization", etc. is just a corporate handout that involves no actual decrease in state-oligarchy control over the economy. Same goes for "tax cuts" which take the form of the government giving you back some of your tax money if you do a certain thing the gov't wants. Plus, there are several examples of gov't policies which have been introduced to counteract the negative effects of other gov't policies, sometimes providing an ameliorating balance that, while better than the one-sided intervention, still falls well short of the ideal of the state as an impartial referee. For example, things like government management of unionization and employer-employee relations were in many ways the pendulum swinging too far the other way after the government had for decades violently suppressed labor movements and supported employers in any disputes.


hubiestubert: While both are interesting in theory, deep down, it boils down to a working system that promotes the welfare of society and those within it, as opposed to tying your government to naught but ideal principles

I hear this all the time- "forget ideology, we should just do what works!", as if "what works" was obvious and not in dispute. "Just do what works" is a meaningless platitude unless you have some definition of what the goal is- in other words, some kind of ideological and moral compass.

Churchill2004: It advocates a system of maximum reciprocal freedom supported and defended by a system of laws.

This is extremeley vague. This would describe my ideal system as well but I am surely not lasseiz-faire.

Wooly Bully: Churchill2004: We would benefit greatly right now from intelligent, honest people on both sides of the debate, inlcuding intelligent, honest people opposed to Obama and the Democrat's plans.

Very true, and let's let's not mince words here. Obama is intelligent and honest. Only some of the Democrats are. And the Republicans - with very few exceptions, notably hubiestubert - are stupid and dishonest.

Obama's intelligent, I'm undecided on honest. Breaking his promise to post all bills online five days before signing them is one particular dishonesty that's irking me at the moment, since it was a great idea and is much in need right now. Also deploying- leading?- the "there is no disagreement!" well-poisoners isn't particularly honest in an intellectual sense.

DamnYankees: Churchill2004: It advocates a system of maximum reciprocal freedom supported and defended by a system of laws.

This is extremeley vague. This would describe my ideal system as well but I am surely not lasseiz-faire.

The idea of maximum reciprocal freedom isn't really that vague. In fact it has a very precise meaning- you can do anything you want as long as it does not involve violating the ability of others to do the same.

Churchill2004: Show me this race of angels hidden among men who are pure and good enough to be trusted with using force in order to suppress greed.

Someone will always have the power to use this force. Whether its the warlord, the robber baron, the mod boss, or the government official. We don't need government because its the only system which can have a monopoly on violence - we need government because it is preferable to the alternative forms of violence.

Churchill2004:

You might not like the results and thus oppose it, but scrupulous laissez-faire is exactly that- people being free to do what they want, excluding only violate the freedom of others. You might think it's utopian, unrealistic, unworkable, whatever, but it is logically consistent in that it advocates a logically self-consistent ideal of individual freedom (or, if you prefer a more neutral word, autonomy).



The problem with the folks who advocate laissez-faire, is that they fail to fully examine their construct.

Project any stateless laissez-faire system out three or four generations, with today's technology or worse, and you end up with *at best* an oligarchy ruled by a tiny aristocracy.

If anyone is wondering what I mean.... get several friends and go play a game of monopoly. How does it always end?

One guy owns all the property, controls all the money, and everyone else is penniless and powerless. That's the inevitable result of capitalist competition, without any sort of social safety net or government interferance in the market.

Libertarian types always like to fantasize about living in a laissez-faire state. No need to fantasize... just give up all of your cash and credit cards, hitch a ride to Africa on a frieghter, and walk your ass to Somalia. The laissez-faire "good life" awaits you.

Enjoy.

GAT_00: Republicans: It isn't Socialism when we do it!

The actions of a minority group of Republicans speak for the group as a whole? True blue liberal indeed!

The GOP may have thought that the stimulus bill was socialist, but they have no problem supporting the nationalization of banks


Yes, they do have a problem with it and yes the Porkulus bill IS socialist.

Churchill2004: In fact it has a very precise meaning- you can do anything you want as long as it does not involve violating the ability of others to do the same.

So let me give you a theoretical situation. It's completely absurd, but go with it on principal:

We live in an island nation and we are unaware of any other nations. We're alone on earth. Over time I have done very well in business - so well, in fact, that I buy all the land. I own all the land in the world by myself. The next day you are born into this world. How do you figure out the property rights of you and I?

General Zang: Project any stateless laissez-faire system out three or four generations, with today's technology or worse, and you end up with *at best* an oligarchy ruled by a tiny aristocracy.

Another way of saying what I tried to say in my absurd hypothetical. Good way of putting it.

jjorsett: Lindsay Graham is a reliable pinhead on some issues, just like McCain and Bush. He was all for illegal alien amnesty. His stance on anything doesn't necessarily mean "the GOP" is with him.

ndotseth: The GOP may have thought that the stimulus bill was socialist, but they have Senator Graham has no problem supporting the nationalization of banks.

Yeah, and he's also just dug his own political grave, along with Specter and those 2 other loons from Maine.

Ha, I love it -- now Lindsay Graham is a RINO too. Keep digging, guys. You're doing a heckuva job!

ndotseth: The GOP may have thought that the stimulus bill was socialist, but they have Senator Graham has no problem supporting the nationalization of banks.

Yeah, and he's also just dug his own political grave, along with Specter and those 2 other loons from Maine.

Not from Maine, are you? Snowe and Collins are two of the most popular senators in the country. Maine is not a hardcore conservative state. We like moderates.

The first step, though, is to take those kids down a peg. Especially the younger one. (pops)