If my previous comments are any indication, I love Wikipedia. It's democratic information and largely free of bias. I did mention it's not always the best for highly contested debates (which this probably is), but they have a whole slew of references at the bottom if you really, really, really want to keep digging. I, personally, don't. Feel free to try and prove everyone wrong. But I think your efforts are better spent rallying for Palin in 2012.

Check it: <a href="http://tr.im/jhQk
http://tr.im/jhQk<br />

.m

johntaylor- Your perspective is actually the very reason I'm here, so thank you for sharing. I'll make sure to keep my reason next time I vote and I hope you do too. God bless.

Actually, Wikipedia is an awesome resource. It's democratic and usually pretty balanced. But, of course, it's also freely editable and prone to vandalism, making it important to fact check on more heatedly debated topics. But I think the article on slippery slopes is pretty safe.

You're more than free to make all the comments and personal attacks you want. I'm more than free to challenge them with reason and call you on your lack thereof – hoping you put more thought into it next time. Not for my sake, but for the integrity of our country's sake. I know we all can do better!

I am not especially obsessed with my body or ego. I am obsessed with trying to add reason to a chain of half-baked, knee-jerk reactionaries who are otherwise lacking in any reason based on their posts.

Anyway, not sure where you're going with this, but it sounds like another foolish personal attack. Why don't you challenge what I'm saying?

You can make personal attacks on me until the taxed cows come home, but all you're doing is cheapening your arguments and the ideals you're fighting for. Please offer some intelligent and less emotionally charged thought and I'll show you people who will follow and listen to you.
I will also touch on a couple things you've mentioned here...

- I'm not friends with Chavez. I doubt he even knows my name. And regardless, I actually agree that his self-serving changing of the Venezuelan constitution is unsettling and his heated and childish comments to our country and our current administration probably don't deserve the warmness that Obama is portraying here. But there's always more to the story and I think people are getting more up in arms over this than they ought to be.
- Reason by emotions? Your post is overrun with emotion.
- World order communist drone? Please back this up with hard evidence. Hannity, Ann Coulter and Michael Reagan don't count. They're pundits.
- Fly around the world with tax payer dollars? That's his JOB.
- I still own all of my private property. So do you. And we will for a long time to come.
- AmeriCorps does many wonderful things for the people of this country and, most importantly, it does so within our own borders, helping our own citizens. Are you insinuating this is a bad thing? For the record, no I'm not an "Americorp (sic) Dude."

Please point me to an article referencing any official taxing on our breathing or cows defecating. I might be mistaken, but it sounds like you're stretching the truth and committing a very common rhetorical fallacy: the slippery slope.

It's a very popular one in the Drudge world, but I suggest you stop using it. It weakens and, in fact, practically nullifies your "arguments."

See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope for more information on this failed tactic and how to make more sound arguments.

None taken and I'm realizing the same things.

Anyone calling themselves a devout Christian while "turning the other cheek" to compassion and tolerance are in dire need of reading between the lines of the New Testament and really understanding the life and work of Jesus Christ, the very one they're supposedly basing their entire livelihood after.

The Christian vote used to lean left on social issues and social programs. I have no idea what happened to that. Oh, right, the likes of Billy Graham and the frighteningly close-minded Evangelical movement.

In regards to "FDR sitting with Stalin," I'm pretty sure history will agree that the we couldn't have battled Germany and Japan simultaneously without Russia on our side. At the very least, adding Russia to our list of enemies at that time would have made the modern world a very, very scary place.

Of course, this allegiance did soon wind up biting back at us for the next 50 years, but I think it's safe to say it was the decision with lesser repercussions.

Let's also not forget that Winston Churchill was in this famous meeting.

"Hussein?" Oh you mean "Barrack Hussein Obama." A cheap way to cheapen your cheap retort.