Iv'e always have been disgusted in the level of rhetoric on FPM as a poster since 2005 and I can't possibly count how many times I've been booted for speaking my mind while asking for reasonable discourse with viable sources. I will never get it. I understand that this is a mechanism of right wing rhetoric and the ones who bother to read and follow this garbage are just grasping for hope in their ignorant and inferior complexion.
So let's talk about your economic model of recovery for a second. -- study this article for a moment ---

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-...

Ireland is your economic model for a successful recovery without deficit spending and I politely ask you to please counter this premise with an argument to dis-spell this as an isolated case while taking into consideration the return on our investment for the ridiculous amount of deficit spending on senseless middle ease wars that benefit no one other than Israel and the oil mongers of our country while good honest hard working Americans suffer at their disposal.

I wager that I will receive nothing if not a one or a few hostile rhetoric remarks that are off base without substance. I can guarantee that.

The very truth is is that you are tools for the filthy rich and you know nothing and you only mimic their brainwashing tactics --- you are a bunch of shameful fools..

Please give me as many negative points as I honorably deserve -- I should be honorably booted.

Governor Brewer's brass balls hang below her knees.

We are fighting the Mexican American War all over again. If you simply pour beer down the throats of these "Mexican-so-call-Americans" and ask why we shouldn't protect our border and control illegal entry, you will get your answer --- "Viva Mexico"
I say it's time for an armed conflict.

I dissagree with Karl Rove for this reason: The first and most important issue here is our ability to adapt to difficult political situations to able ourselve to take necessary military action without having to prove anything while still showing the rest of world that we use legal due process within our constitutional system -- everyone knows opinions are diverse. One of the advantages the enemy has with terrorism is that we can't blame an attack on a specific country per say as it is difficult to pin them down. i.e Osama Bin Laden is still on the run.

It's better that we take what we want as we see fit. Karl just needs to let it go and stop bring attention to it.

Personally, I'm for spreading Christianity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Church's have been and should be an integral part of our thriving economy. The only way we can really win these wars is to give them the same opportunity to succeed as we have. Christianity brings business together for the common good where as Islamic fundamentalist thrive on poverty.

So should the Mosque be allowed? Not within view of the memorial. But if they should be allowed to worship in Manhattan close enough to the memorial site of 9/11 to cause havoc, then that would give them too much recognition on our claims to having to right to worship and thus making a mockery of our heritage and the sensitivity of that tragic moment in our history.

Would the Mosque create economic value as the example I gave about Christian church's in Afghanistan?

The answer is no and it is because I believe the mosque in question is just a political maneuver to incite provocation --- no good could come out of this.

She seems to try to be balanced which could explain her position on Sharia law at the time she wrote the thesis. What little research I have done on this subject seems to suggest that this is just the typical hot air partisanship that we go through before senate hearings before any substantial nomination. Many suggest that she leans one way or the other to promote balance in the argument thus giving the claim in question due process. Maybe we should examine issues that she argued against sharia law or for pro Judaism in such issues.

This may be a plan right out of G.W.'s playbook. Maybe North Korea didn't attack the South Korean ship and we are making a false premise to escalate tensions. Bush Sr. or Jr. didn't have the public support to go into Bagdad till 9/11. After 9/11, America gave G.W. an open check book to do whatever he wanted which he did -- finish where his Father left off.
Obama is approaching the Eve of a pivitol election year and he needs to create drama for the much needed hawkish votes. If he can manage to get the North to back down to the U.S.S. Washington, then his critics will have less clout on the idea that he is soft. This is a possible scenerio that should be considered.