WHY CAN't LIBS REMEMBER THE DOT. COM BUST OF?
822676
Because they were more interested in teletubbys than the economy.
886888
We really have no idea what they did-it's all been ruled top-secret! Suits aginst Haliburtan were dismissed. Wow-this story in the money section while the headlines screamed about yet another closet gay Republican. Thanks!\n\nNo and yes...but I'm thinking probably won't.
64956
This is SO ridiculous!  Their political party has nothing to do with it. Why not get a list of pedophiles that wear green socks or a list of pedophiles that eat at IHOP? It would have about the same meaning!
18593
Laziness, Remember not to long ago it was found that Wikipedia got caught with their pants down in reference to Kennedy.\nEven though Commentators have said its pretty accurate now, how could they poosible research all entries in a couple of days.\nIt has to be advertisement driven, so biased editing is always possible.\nCould be it is so heavily promoted because of the dumbing down of US and lack of critical thinking skills?
802755
Bottom line, America forgets easily unless reminded constantly. Its all in the "now" or "current" perception.  Democrats do not have the "go for the jugular and never let go" gene; whereas the Republicans do.  If the Dems had the gene they would have been and will continue to make reference to Gingrich's misconduct at each and every opportunity.  The Republicans manage to hold the spotlight to  Dem misgivings in a manner that does not allow the voting public to forget.  Perfect example is Clinton' look at how every time a negative comes up about BUSH and the like, they always remind us of "...Clinton did..... Clinton was...Clinton tried, whether in or out of context!" Hence never allowing space to forget the misgivings and focus on the great.  If Dems would have continued to use Gingrich misconduct at every opportunity, rubbing the Republicans nose in its foulness for years, he would be less likely remembered for any perceived greatness.
899157
They haven't been forgotten, they've been ignored!! They think that by misdirection (Lance Burton trickery) they can somehow save the sinking ship that is the Republican Party. I don't like the Dumbocrats either, but we've seen what the Repubs can do and it didn't work. Maybe now we should let someone else have a shot at it.......Everyone Vote Green Party this year.......WOOOOOT   Go Green Party!!!!
555736
Some conservatives are clueless, Here on Y-answers they're not hard to pick out. They tend to regurgitate the party line passed on from generations of conservative drunk or mentally unbalanced relatives spewing their warped ideas of what liberals actually are. Think Archie Bunker, remember him!? The cons refuse to accept responsibility for anything this criminal administration has done, opting rather to point the finger at our greatest modern day Pres. WJ Cliton. So between generations of conservative families, Rush, Ann Coutlter, and the "fair and balanced" FoxNEws channel they almost have no shot at all to learn to think for themselves, kind of sad really.
419173
Looks like they are forwarding their domain to dump.com.\nI can't see it either.
213724
Google Bombing.  Websites with the word "failure" are linking to this site.  Some may be legit...most are trying to acheive this position.\n\nIt is very intentional...although it is hard to say who is doing it.\n \nFrom Wikipedia:\n\n"the entire notion of "Google bombs" might be better described as "link bombing," given that these campaigns can certainly have an effect on other search engines, as well. All major search engines make use of link analysis and thus can be impacted. So, a search for "miserable failure" on June 1, 2005 brought up the official George W. Bush biography number one on Google, Yahoo and MSN and number two on Ask Jeeves. On June 2, 2005, Yooter reported that George Bush is now ranked first for the keyword 'failure' as well as 'miserable failure' in both Google and Yahoo. And on September 16, 2005, Marissa Mayer wrote on Google Blog about the practice of Google bombing and the word "failure." (See Google's response below) Other large political figures have been targeted for Google bombs such as, Yooter reported on January 6, 2006, Tony Blair is now indexed in the US version of Google for the keyword 'liar'.\n"\n\n\nMy second source is the webpage of the individuals doing this.
879404
They can do it because "Craigslist" is not responsible and no law enforcement agency has jurisdiction over crimes committed in "cyber space."  Our concepts of jurisdiction have not yet evolved to encompass acts done where there is no location for the action.  The F.B.I. could probably prosecute, but it is not worth the effort since they would have to find a way to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt what "100 roses" really meant and what services were really being offered.
585510
Because most liberals are conspiratists.  They  like nothing better than blaming the current government for all the evils in the world.  As far as a plane hitting the pentagon, I believe that one did.  And I feel bad for all the people who died there, and in New York.  I also feel bad that the family members of all the victims have to deal with all this crap being put out on the news and Internet.  We should never forget what happened on 9/11, but we should let the deceased rest in peace and not keep dragging everything out all the time.
773060
Maybe his website was hacked.  But don't call it a largespread conservative plot or anything.  Could have been one stupid person trying to start trouble.
1116696
See you can see they are still all pissed on here... they say the "facts are out there" about Iraq.. .and then they cite a bias blog that has no links to any real facts... \n\nThey say we have no plans... yet Clinton balanced the budget and was close to to making real progress on the debt (which they say was because of a Republican congress, but oh the democratic congress didn't have anything to do with the success in the 80s?)... \n\nnow they are getting close to doubling the debt and Iraq is in shambles and WE have no plans? \n\nIn short... they cite blogs, we site stats... then they get mad when we don't believe the blogs and then they won't talk about stats... \n\nThey think Rush is telling the truth, with no evidence... we like evidence and links... \n\nThey are mad because that's all they have left... it's all they can do... they try to encite fear with "they are dangerous to this country"... look back in history... sound familiar?\n\nmymadsky: Kerry had a VERY DETAILED PLATFORM that dealt with many of these issues... perhaps you should pay attention... I don't see Bush's plan anywhere.... who has the plan again?
1084883
The truth is sometimes ugly & painful, eh, libs?  Not one intelligent rebuttle from any libs.  Emotions will never win over logic ( that's why Captian Kirk had Spock!)  For all the liberals with amnesia - During the 2004 Presidential State of the Union speech - I clearly remember Bush stating that Iraq, Iran & North Korea were the axis of evil and that countries that harbor terrorist would beheld accountable.  Have we forgotten that specch libs?
554148
Actually, I was seeing smear ads against Busby (Democrat), put out by the Republican National Committee, about 2 weeks before the Dems started smearing Bilbray. But it doesn't matter who slings mud first in any given campaign, since most devolve to that anyway.\n\nPolitics is about perception, not reality. The ads are literally true about the facts (required to avoid defamation) but massively inaccurate in terms of the assumptions they induce.\n\nFor example, look at the smear against Busby (I picked that one just because I am more familiar with it, not because I support the Democrats).\n\nThe ad says "she opposes campaign contributions by government contractors" but "has taken thousands of dollars from employees of government contractors". The RNC wants people to see this as a contradiction. But it's not.\n\nThere's a huge difference between taking $200K in contributions from Halliburton, and taking $2K (the federal limit) from some janitor or copy clerk who happens to work for Halliburton. Being opposed to the first does make you a hypocrite for accepting the second. \n\nJust an example, but you get the point. People are being misled, by all of the major political parties, and being fed half-truths designed to provoke an emotional response. It's really sad that our political process has devolved to the point where only 42% of the population actually votes, and most of that number is either made up of people voting based on political party affiliation (rather than actually voting for the individuals) or based on emotional manipulation rather than facts.
599076
Um, it's because of the liberal media? Yeah, that's the ticket. The damned liberal media (nearly all of which is owned by huge corporations who are anything but liberal) are always trying to skew the facts and figures against our beloved el presidente. \n\nErm, in his defense I can tell you that he has single-handedly wiped out a budget surplus left him by Clinton (that dirty bastard!) and turned it into the worst deficit this country has ever known. Hail to the thief! He's also dragged us into a costly and unwinnable war based on lies and misinformation. God love the man! And best of all, he has essentially defecated on the Constitution, infringing and trodding upon our rights to privacy in the name of the "war on terror." Mein fuhrer! Erm, I mean, my hero?\n\n(So how was that for a defense of our idiot king?)
708512
You'd be wise to discover just who owns these publications.\n\n\n\n\nGlad you took the  time to find out and I wasn't trying to insult you.\n\nThat Gannet also owns USA Today points in a particular direction: the left.\n\nAnd by the way, Rumsfeld is not my favorite person.