"When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans," he said in yesterday's interview. "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitised me."



George Soros, one of the world's wealthiest financiers and philanthropists, has declared that getting George Bush out of the White House has become the "central focus" of his life, and he has put more than $15m (£9m) of his own money where his mouth is.



Mr Soros argues that the Bush White House is guided by a "supremacist ideology" that is leading it to abuse US power in its dealings with the rest of the world, and creating a state of permanent warfare.



He has mounted a single-minded campaign involving a book, magazine and newspaper articles as well as multi-million dollar donations to liberal groups, all aimed at defeating President Bush in the November 2004 elections, a contest he describes as "a matter of life and death".



The Hungarian emigre and finance genius has given nearly $5bn to oppose dictators in Africa, Asia and the former Soviet bloc, but now he is directing his energies at the elected leader of his adopted country.



"It is the central focus of my life," he told the Washington Post in an interview published yesterday, after announcing a donation of $5m to a liberal activist organisation called MoveOn.org. The gift brings the total amount in donations to groups dedicated to Mr Bush's removal to $15.5m.



Other pledges of cash have gone to America Coming Together (ACT), an anti-Bush group that proposes to mobilise voters against the president in 17 battleground states. Mr Soros and a friend, Peter Lewis, the chairman of a car insurance company, promised $10m.



Mr Soros has also helped to bankroll a new liberal think-tank, the Centre for American Progress, to be headed by Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta, which will aim to counter the rising influence of neo-conservative institutions in Washington.



The 74-year-old investor, who made a fortune betting against the pound in the late 80s and against the dollar this year, is to lay out the reasons for his detestation of the Bush administration in a book to be published in January, titled The Bubble of American Supremacy, a polemic which he has half-jokingly dubbed the 'Soros Doctrine'.



In the book, he will argue that the US is doing itself immeasurable harm by its heavy-handed role in the world. "The dominant position the United States occupies in the world is the element of reality that is being distorted," he writes, according to an excerpt to be published in next month's Atlantic Monthly magazine. "The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position."



The Bush administration's "war on terrorism" cannot be won, he argues, but is instead ushering in "a permanent state of war". He uses the emotive terms like "supremacist ideology" deliberately, saying that some of the rhetoric coming from the White House reminds him of his childhood in Nazi-occupied Hungary.



"When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans," he said in yesterday's interview. "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitised me."



His remarks have infuriated the Republican party, which has accused him of promoting his interests with the steady flow of money to like-minded institutions, and avoiding federal limits on donations to political parties - an allegation which Democrats consistently level at big business for its links with the Republicans.



"George Soros has purchased the Democratic party," said Christine Iverson, a Republican national committee spokeswoman.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1083165,00.html

are fifth columnists and traitors to freedom. I'm glad he's got lot's of money to just throw away like that, what with all the starving people in the world, he devotes his life to defaming the President and enbling terrorists.

Al Gore made a little speech to moveon.org, Soros' pet project:

http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech2.html

"But a lot of other changes have taken place that a lot of people don’t know about and that come as unwelcome surprises. For example, for the first time in our history, American citizens have been seized by the executive branch of government and put in prison without being charged with a crime, without having the right to a trial, without being able to see a lawyer, and without even being able to contact their families. "



Does anyone know what the hell he's talking about? Who are these "American citizens" that are being deprived of their rights?? Somebody produce a list! I think it's a pretty short list, with like two guys on it. Joseph Padilla is one and he is getting to see his lawyer, so Al Gore is a blad face liar if that's who he's talking about.

What a bald face liar. Joseph Padilla has been allowed to see a lawyer on numerous occasions:

http://vigilant.tv/article/2948

Padilla's fate is being played out right now, as you read this. He's getting three hots and cot, and that's probably more than he should be getting.

If he's guilty, he should be executed.

Try reading the constitution and then tell me that Padilla is not being deprived.

There is a liar on this thread....but it ain't Soros and it ain't me....

...fuckin' Republicans are allergic to the truth....

Screw you KPC, you one eyed piece liberal democrap.

What specific constitutional right is Padilla being deprived of? And if Al Gore is so fucking concerned about it, why isn't he out there marching in the streets.

For all you that even know who Padilla is, or even give a shit, he's the alleged dirty-bomber, supposedly American, that the Governement has locked up and thrown away the key.

He's being held in a Navy brig here in Charleston, SC on the Naval Weapons Station.

I just happened to be over there on Monday, and it was quiet as it could be. No protestors, no signs, nothing. No body gives two squirts about Padilla because, more than likely, he's guilty.

And if he is, let him rot in that brig.

Where's the list?

It's not unusual for extremely rich men to develop a paranoid streak; think Howard Hughes or Ross Perot. So one shouldn't be too shocked at George Soros' recent statements, which are, to be kind, a tad harebrained.

Soros has become the biggest bankroller in Democratic politics, having pledged $10 million to an anti-Bush group called America Coming Together. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.

Not that the Dems should look a gift horse in the mouth, but I have to wonder if they're altogether comfortable with the idea that their biggest donor is a guy who goes around saying that the president of the United States is another Hitler.

Lately, I have noted several signs of increasing tolerance for anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party, and I've worried that the party's angry mood may make it more vulnerable to this form of bigotry. "Not everyone on the Angry Left is anti-Semitic," I wrote, "but a party that stands for nothing other than rage may find it difficult to enforce distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate targets of that rage."

Now I have a perfect storm of Angry Leftism and anti-Semitism, centered on one man: George Soros, the eccentric billionaire who has become a one-man Democratic money machine. Soros has taken to comparing President Bush to Hitler, and last week the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Soros says anti-Semitism is the fault of . . . the Jews and President Bush.

"There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe," Soros, who is himself Jewish, told a conference of the Jewish Funders Network. "The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that." He even blamed himself for anti-Semitism: "I'm also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world," he said. "As an unintended consequence of my actions, I also contribute to that image."

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13428&intcategoryid=4

Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, called Soros's remarks "absolutely obscene" and said, "It's blaming the victim for all of Israel's and the Jewish people's ills."

The New York Sun called various Democrats to see if any would denounce Soros's remarks, and found only one, New York's Rep. Eliot Engel, who was willing to do so, calling them "ridiculous and outrageous" and "morally reprehensible." Howard Dean, Sen. Joe Lieberman and Rep. Anthony Weiner were among those who demurred from criticizing Soros.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/11/12&ID=Ar00100

On the bright side, earlier this week Soros told the Washington Post that defeating President Bush is "the central focus of my life." That means if Bush is re-elected it will disprove the proposition that Jews control the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24179-2003Nov10.html

IAMS: "What specific constitutional right is Padilla being deprived of?"

God, you are either really stupid or you really haven't read the constitution, have you?

Tell me, he is in 'the brig" on what charge?

Nevermind...you are Republican...so you will lie. I will tell you in case you cannot speak the truth or just do not know (common Republican affliction)..

...he has NOT been charged. He is a citizen IN FACT....not "supposedly". Go read the constitution and tell me what it says about being held without charges, Brainiac...

...you want a list? I've got your list right here...wanna see?

Feel free to direct me though.

I did find this though:

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, ...

unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,

or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "



So I'd say the question is whether or not our detainee, Mr. Padilla, is getting "due process of law".

What exactly is "due process":

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html

"Due process is a difficult thing to define, and the Supreme Court has not been much help over the years. Here's what we can say about due process:

In the Magna Carta, due process is referred to as "law of the land" and "legal judgment of his peers."

Right now, the "Law of the land" is the Patriot Act, legistlation enacted by Congress.

Mr. Padilla will be detained as long as our elected Government sees to be fit.

Another victory for the Constitution!

Nice little fascist two-step there...

...try REALLY reading it this time, dickwit..

or are you going back up your folderol?

tick tock tick tock tick tock ...



Well?



Which Constitutional right of Mr. Padilla's is being violated?

Feel free to cite the Constitution, and make it snappy! I don't have all day...

I have no idea. I'm talking out my ass cuase it's the most intelligent thing on my person. I'm a liberal.

How do you educate and idiot? You don't...you laugh at him!

But, for the sake of humor...let's laugh at the idiot!

Besides the portion you sighted, from the Bill of Rights Amendment V, which obviously the government is currently in violation of...despite your convaluted reasoning (again...REPUBLICAN!)...letting him sit with no process being the REPUBLICAN idea of "due process"...

...there is this

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Being held without charge is in violation of the 6th Amendment ("...and informed of the nature of the charges against him....", in case you being Republican gives your more than the usual difficulty)

Face it...you are wrong...as you always will be...as everything you say, type, think or dream about always will be...regardless of what lies your mommy and daddy tell you...

You'll just have to get used to it dude...either that, or continue posting here for our amusment...to remote howls of derisive laughter...

Now, type a lame insult followed by a worn out REPUBLICAN cliche...I need a good laugh...

DO IT!

You said it yourself. Padilla has neither been charged, nor prosecuted as of yet. He is merely being detained for the public good.

No charges = no need for criminal prosecution

no criminal prosecution = 6th Ammendment still intact



Again you've tried, and failed.

"Merely being detained for the public good."

That's your response?!?!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

In that case, why would you charge any suspected criminal with a crime if you could just throw him in jail and forget about him?

Answer: Because it is in violation of the 6th Amendment. Any schoolboy knows that...get thee back to 6th grade, idiot!

Oh, and thanks for demonstrating the fact that you're an idiot! I couldn't have done it better myself. "Duhhhh, all we have to do is not prosecute or charge him..and we can do anything we want..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (*cough*) HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...this is like shooting fish in a barrel...very stoooopid fish....

Here, let me give you a concession of sorts (hope it makes you feel better):

I admit that the Constitution is in fact being circumvented (not violated).

But its not the 5th or 6th Ammendments we're talking about (yet).

Its the Right to habeas corpus, that is being beleaguered. None of the other stuff you mentioned matters at this point.

Padilla's lawyer has petitioned the courts for a writ of habeas corpus, in accordance with his Constitutional rights. Now, the Judges must decide.

Only Congress can suspend habeas corpus for and individual or group, and only in extreme circumstances. This is what the Government is arguing has been done with the Patriot Act, under which Padilla's detention falls.

The Government can not (nor will it) win this legal battle. There will come a point in which it's legal recourses will conclude, and they will be forced to charge Padilla. Then he'll get his trial.

In the meantime, he's stuck. The Government will win the battle for now, but the outcome of the war is still to be determined.

But the reason no one, not even YOU, my dear Constitution thumper, is out protesting for Padilla's immediate release is because...

he's guilty.

There's no other explanation for the fact that the biggest Government guns are bearing down upon Padilla.

The problem I have with this whole thing, is how Democrats like Al Gore and yourself feel the need to obfuscate and politicize these one or two individuals (who are obviously guilty of something for the administration to be so focused on them), making it sound like the Nazis are going door to door, when in reality the list of people detained is extremely small.

Padilla is not the first political prisoner the world has ever seen, nor shall he be the last.

Want public opinion on your side? Prove Padilla is innocent of the insinuations levied against him.

Jeez...so much stupidity in one post...

It is not a Right of habeas corpus, it a writ of habeas corpus, produce the body to answer the charge...comes from the 6th Amendment, dickless.

more stupidity: "...no one is out protesting for Padilla's immediate release is because he's guilty."

Then charge him and try him...FIRST...like the Constitution says...as inconveniet as that might be...otherwise you have no proof of your assertion...NONE AT ALL!

want more...got more: "There's no other explanation for the fact that the biggest Government guns are bearing down upon Padilla."

Ya mean like Wen Ho Lee? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

and still more: "when in reality the list of people detained is extremely small. "

Really? How many? How many need to be unconstitutionally detained before you wake the fuck up?

....yes more: "Prove Padilla is innocent of the insinuations levied against him."

Um...geez, get back to the 5th grade dude...you do not have to prove your innocence, the prosecution has to prove your guilt.

Geez...too easy...this is like shooting stooopid DEAD fish in a barrrel...."Duhhh...he must be guilty or he wouldn't be in jail...duuhhhh..."

dickless Republican...pardon my redundancy...

"It is not a Right of habeas corpus, it a writ of habeas corpus, produce the body to answer the charge...comes from the 6th Amendment, dickless."

No, it comes from Article I, Section 9, Clause 2.

You're right though, it's not a right. It's a privilege. Which brings up a whole other discussion in itself. Since it's a privilege and not a right, maybe the Government can in fact keep Padilla locked up indefinately!

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I appreciate it.

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 2" - Here endeth the lesson.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

This gives the Government the right to keep Padilla locked up for eternity, if they so choose, without a trial, without a lawyer, without charging him, and without hope.

The founding fathers thought of everything!

Here endeth the lesson KPC.

See you in the designated protesting areas, chickenboy!

Another one bites the dust!

It's not the first time and it won't be the last. I don't have a lot going for me. I'm pretty much as worthless as they get. The world would be better off if I were dead. I tried to shoot myself in the head before, but the bullet could never find my pea-sized brain.

"This gives the Government the right to keep Padilla locked up for eternity, if they so choose, without a trial, without a lawyer, without charging him, and without hope. "

REEEALLLY? Let's look at this again;

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of REBELLION or INVASION the public Safety MAY require it."

Rebellion? Nope...no rebellion. Invasion? Nope...no invasion. So...cannot be suspended. Thanks for providing the rope for you own hanging. Much appreciated. (Maybe he can work cut'n'paste but can't fuckin read!)

Thus ends one phase in the endless humiliation of dickless.

...like shooting stooopid, dead, ROTTING fish in a barrel...

...now go away or I shall taunt you a second time...

While you're at it, define "sexual relations" too...

Would you be my wife's lawyer? You see, we're getting a divorce.

Sometimes I ask myself, why do I come here on a daily basis and have my ass handed to me? Well, this time it's because my husband is out of town and I did not get the opportunity to eat out his ass and give him the common courtesy of a reach around before he had to leave. So, I'm a little frustrated. Hopefully when he gets home, he'll spank my fat, acne spotted ass until I pee. I just love that.

Oh, now we are in REBELLION!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, Jeez, you are just too fuckin funny for words...even that Masterbaiter shrub wouldn't try to pawn off that bullshit...but I guess nothing is beneath his loyal doggie minions....

...watch out, I think there are rebels under your bed!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Pardon what I did above. It was easier than actually answering your question. I can't define anything without first consulting my little red book to see if I'm permitted.

I asked you to define "rebellion". Obviously you won't. Another admission of ineptitude.

Again, I win.

Ah...a legend in his own mind...

You make your own arguements my little rotting dead doggie fish.....

Now...where were we...oh, that's right...we were laughing at your stupidity!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I asked you to define "rebellion". Obviously you won't. Another admission of ineptitude.

Again, I win.

If an American citizen is complicit in a plot to detonate a dirty nuclear bomb inside the borders of the United States, with the intentions of undermining our Government, he certainly should be considered an insurgent.

Do you not agree?

If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle...

Do you not agree?

I've been quite courteous to you in this dialogue, and you'd choose to make yourself look foolish.

Why the puerile, infintile vituperations? Why not engage me in a rational discussion?

I promise not psychological brow-beat you too badly...

Can you believe I said "If your aunt had balls". These are the arguments (?) people like me on the left has been reduced to. And I see it as a winning argument. That's how pitiful I am.

I gotta go do an audit now. Where's my tinker toys?

"Why the puerile, infintile vituperations?"

Oh...we are all impressed...building your vocab with the help of Reader's Digest?

"Why not engage me in a rational discussion?"

No problem...just let me know when you get around to starting one...

That's another way of saying I know when I'm whipped. Leave me alone. I never get used to having my ass handed to me, well, not unless your name is Boy George, then it's OK.

If an American citizen is complicit in a plot to detonate a dirty nuclear bomb inside the borders of the United States, with the intentions of undermining our Government, he certainly should be considered an insurgent.

Agree?

Yes or no will suffice.

Maybe...

Do you have a point? How about getting around to it sometime...some of us gotta work...

...nevermind...put your mommy on, maybe she can clear this up...

Some of us gotta work, but it sure isn't me. Take your time. I got nothing to do all day anyway. Just don't make me have to read words containing over six letters. I'm not that bright.

No. No point at all. Forget I mention it.

I just assumed since you actually put a minute bit of energy into the discussion initially, you might have some little choice morsel that might compell me to admit that I'm wrong.

Guess I know the Constitution better than you.

Consider yourself soundly thrashed.

"you might have some little choice morsel that might compell me to admit that I'm wrong. "

Shit, I already know your wrong...I don't fuckin care if you admit it....

You want to make a point, then grow some fuckin' hair on your ass and make it on your own Buster Brown.

soundly thrashed...

I was soundly thrashed before I got up this afternoon. Don't expect much from me. I trying to hand this dual personality problem I have and my check doesn't come for another 2 weeks. Hang in there with me. I'm a liberal so don't hold out much hope for me to say anything reasonable.

The scent cakes in the urinals need changing!

Could you do my audit? I've never seen anyone audit worth a damn that's a liberal and I'm confident you'd fit the bill just fine. You liberals are all the same, stupid down to the bone.

OK, OK...I'll toss your hairless ass a bone, doggie...

IF the is a plot and IF he was complicit and IF there was a dirty nuclear bomb and IF his intentions were to undermine our government, then MAYBE he could be considered and insurgent.

But that is an awful lot of IF's and one big MAYBE...certainly don't meet the constitutional test. You even said so yourself yesterday, or have you forgotten that already (being Republican...I could understand that you "don't recall"). Like I said, If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle...but she don't, so she ain't.

Now...DO you HAVE a point? Or can your mommy help out here?

just so we can fire your dumb communist ass!



See, we own the means of production. So we can do that and get away with it...

So...you want me to audit what, your candy jar?

Mommy's gotta sign a release form first....

Would you be my wife's lawyer? You see, we're getting a divorce.

That is, IF you have the time. I know how tough auditing can be (snicker, snicker).

No, a candy jar would be beyond your capacity. We were thinking more along the line of animal crackers. But, we'll let you start out slowly. See if you can handle it.

and then I retracted it shortly after you pointed out that "writ of habeas corpus" is not a "Right", it is a "Privilege".

So, under the auspices of the Constitution, who gets to decide whether or not Padilla is an insurgent?

You're beloved Constitution seems to have a "Catch-22".

You can't deem someone an insurgent without a fair trial right?

And you can't force a trial without a writ of habeas corpus.

And we all know who can suspend writ of habeas corpus.

Looks like Padilla is just as fucked as your arguments. I be he would be glad not to have you for a lawyer...

Another reason why individuals like kpc are not permitted to make important decisions. He thinks (well, not really, by his own admission) he understands the law, but he hasn't a clue.

His efforts will get nowhere. He's a legend in his own mind. We'll continue to do what is necessary to defend ourselves, and individuals like kpc might not like it, but he'll live with it. And if he doesn't, so what.

"But that is an awful lot of IF's and one big MAYBE...certainly don't meet the constitutional test."

I'd also have to say that I'm flummoxed on this one also.

What is a "constitutional test" and how might one administer said test to a discussion such as the one KPC and I are involved in?

"I retracted it shortly after you pointed out that "writ of habeas corpus" is not a "Right", it is a "Privilege".

Jeez, what is it with Republican, can't you open your mouth or lay your fingers on a keyboard without lying?

I never said it wasn't a right. I said that you called it a Right of Habeas Corpus, when what is it is a "Writ"...you being nearly illiterate, I can see how you were confused...not knowing your writ from your left...how you got from that to this specious "privilege" claim had nothing to do with me and everything to do with Republican Gap Logic.

So your right...then your wrong...now your right again...

...oops...to late...your already wrong again, my rotting little dead doggie fish.....

Soundly thrashed...

With posts like that last one ... why do you bother typing anything at all?

Please pardon my continued stupidity. For some reason, I continually screw up. I have no right to complain about conservatives, for if not for them I wouldn't have food to eat, clothes to wear, or a place to live. If it were up to liberals like myself, we would all still be living in caves, throwing spears to kill our food, wearing animal skins, and our only word would be "Ugh!", just like my mom still does. I'm not sure which of my 40 or so "uncles" is my real father, or if any of them are, but I should learn to keep my mouth shut and just appear stupid rather than open my mouth and remove all doubt. I'm an idiot liberal (pardon the redundancy).

Read the fucking Constitution you moron.

Christ!

I'm done...



Good fucking grief what a loser...

I don't blame you. I wouldn't hang out with me if I didn't have to. I'm an idiot.

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 2" - Here endeth the lesson.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."



The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The Privilege

The Privilege

The Privilege

The Privilege

The Privilege

The Privilege

Privilege

Privilege

Privilege

Privilege

Privilege

Privilege

Privilege

idiot.

Say it over and over as many time as your like...you were done before you started, my little rotting dead doggie fish. It is mentioned as a carry over from common law...and it SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED unless certain conditions are met (hmmm, that doesn't sound like a privelege, and those conditions are not being met). Futher illuminated in the 6th amendment, which means that the prosecution can be held to produce the body to answer to the charges. No charges? Oh, then release the body, no cause to be held. Very simple unless your simple...so I guess that explains your difficulty...

Yeah...your done alright...done, over and OUT!

Buh-bye!

Take care!

Adios!

Shuss!

Would you be my wife's lawyer? You see, we're getting a divorce.

I hate getting my ass handed to me. Makes we wish I had two good eyes. But then again, Papa couldn't skull fuck me then.

One thing for sure, I'm as qualifed to be a lawyer as I am to be an auditor.

Damn I'm stupid. But what would you expect from a liberal. Nothing. And that's exactly what you'll get outta me.

Ahhhhh...can't you just FEEL the love?

...either that or a severely unhealthy obsession!

Of course, I'm one to be talking about obsession. Look how many posts I've made today. And I've got nothing to show for it. If I were smart, I'd go away and never post at LA-IMC ever agin, But watch, you'll find out I'm not so smart. But, you figured that out already, unless you're a liberal like me, then you'll have to get someone to explain it to you.

Ummm, can you please repeat that insult...but try to make some sense this time..

...all the OneEyedMen here at KPC, Inc. are having a great time...drinking beer and laughing at you...taking turns making you sit up, roll over...y'know...Fido stuff..

DO IT DOGGIE!

What am I talking about. I couldn't make sense if my life depended on it. I'm a liberal idiot (pardon the redundancy).