THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[f.sciarrillo]

Warren Buffett's secretary will be sitting with the First Lady at tonights State Of The Union Address. Who all is watching it?

I would rather be water boarded than listen to the Kenyan lie.

Well, don't that put the dink in co-inky-dink! I'd rather waterboard you than listen to you dancing on the edge of sanity! How 'bout that!

Did you get that tingle up your leg while he spoke last night, Johnny?:lol:

All seriousness, what did you think of the speech? Was a campaign speech? or a regular speech?

[Hawk]

My question was confusing. let me try to make it clearer.


Much of the difference (4.6 Trillion) is do to debt incurred by previous administrations. They can't (by law) stop payments of previous agreements that others (i.e. Bush / and the house) agreed to. If Obama added nothing, the debt would still increase. If you subtract that from the 4.6, how much did Obama increase it ?

Why should Obama's debt be treated any differently than all the others?

If Obama's 4.6 T is because he's paying 4 T of Bush's debt, can he really be held accountable for someone elses debt ? Don't forget, Clinton left Bush with a surplus.

Anybody ?

[songsmith]

[Fuck that...its time for the federal government to get out of the mortgage industry...didn't anybody learn anything from 2008? DUH.

Besides, people who are underwater need to learn a lesson from this so that fewer people will make the same mistake twice. Nobody, corporate or individual, will change their bad behavior if they are rewarded for it.

Yes, we did learn something from '08: The God-like private sector was the culprit. Government oversight was the solution, not the problem, and the suggestion is, how you say, "populist bullshit." For the zillionth time, when govt allowed banks to create toxic assets (hand out money to people who clearly couldn't pay, collect fees, bundle and sell said assets to unsuspecting investors, and insure the loans via the Govt and corps like AIG), the mortgage industry engaged in a blood-orgy of profiteering, knowing full-well that the taxpayer would eventually get the bill. Who did the taxpayer give all that money to? THE BANKS. Trillions of US dollars worth. When the bad guys effed-up, we gave the bad guys even more money than they had originally stolen. Was this Obama? No. Was this black folks getting free houses? Nope. Was this Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Only one-sixth of it. The rest was Wall Street, and they should suffer criminal, prison-time penalties for it. Instead, a fully-corrupt media bangs a misinformation drum, over and over, non-stop, to convince talkshow fans that the government Americans elected is evil, that the criminals have our best interests in mind, that the 1% should be unsupervised, and that talkshow fans will soon join the 1%.
To use your own words, "Nobody, corporate or individual, will change their bad behavior if they are rewarded for it." Stop rewarding Wall St. Punish Wall Street NOW, and strenuously, and the behavior will stop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/realestat ... 0&denied=1

[Hawk]

Obama NOT responsible for all debt increases. Read it and weap...

Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[5] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.[7][8] Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011,[9] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession.

Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[28]

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[29]

[f.sciarrillo]

Obama NOT responsible for all debt increases. Read it and weap...

Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[5] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.[7][8] Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011,[9] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession.

Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[28]

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[29]

What left wing blog are you getting this stuff from?

[songsmith]

Rush Limbaugh called the SOTU a class warfare rally, I find that funny there. He also let us know that the First Lady, I mean the tax payers, paid $2400.00 for her dress. Wasn't that nice?

"Oh, I don't EVER listen to the rightwing media! Stop saying I'm influenced by talkshows!"
Rush Limbaugh is the PROBLEM, not the solution. Without people like Rush and Fox News, we'd never have been sold George Bush II TWICE, the Iraq War, Medicare Part D, Sarah Palin/Bachmann/ODonnell/Angle, the idea that Big Business is benevolent, The Tea Party, and pretty much every other hurtful, destructive thing the American people have had to endure in the last 15 years.
My suggestion is, like 10% of his audience every year, stop listening to him and the rest of the former-patriots in the partisan media. Or stop looking at politics like it's a sport, where you choose who you root for and they're awesome no matter how bad they lose.

[Hawk]

Obama NOT responsible for all debt increases. Read it and weap...

Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[5] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.[7][8] Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011,[9] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession.

Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[28]

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[29]

What left wing blog are you getting this stuff from?

Great rebuttle . You can't dispute facts...

Can you read? It states where the numbers come from...

[Hawk]

That speech last night was a snooze fest. I slept through most of it. Especially when he started talking about the tax cuts to businesses that come back to the us. Everyone with in an ear shot knows it was nothing but crap.

He needs to worry about the companies that are currently here. Sure he will give tax cuts to the companies that come back. But he will raise the taxes of the ones that are already here to pay for it. We have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. He needs to lower them for all businesses. Not just the ones he wants to party it up with.

Wrong Frank. He has been asking the Republicans to cut taxes on businesses who hire Americans. And increase taxes on companies who OUT SOURCE. Why is that so hard to understand ? He's been begging for it since day one. If you stayed awake you might have learned that, and you won't hear it on fox.

Ask yourself why the Republicans would be against that ? Perhaps they are bought and paid for by the companies who out source ?

Frank , what do you think?

[Hawk]

Changing tax rates with the present tax code is PISSING INTO THE WIND and is nothing but a populist rallying cry.

A man makes $57, 000 a day, that's right, $57,000 a DAY (that's 20,805,000 a year). And he pays half in taxes as the man who makes $57,000 a YEAR. And they tell the man who makes $57,000 a year that is for HIS good that the man who makes $57,000 a day pays less than him.

And there are some Rockpage fools who believe that imbalance is good for themselves and defend it with words like, "they create jobs", which proves just how brain washed they are. They are hoarding trillions of dollars and much of it in off shore accounts. Wake up please.

Comments from the right ?

[Hawk]

So Rob, what were you saying about inaction ?
So Jeff, what were you saying about Obama being a proponent of red tape ?

Obama Issues Executive Order to Cut Red Tape
By JOHN MCARDLE AND GABRIEL NELSON of Greenwire
Published: January 18, 2011

In his most forceful reply yet to industry groups and Republicans who have accused the administration of slowing the economic recovery by tying up businesses in red tape, President Obama has ordered a top-to-bottom review of federal regulations to get rid of rules that are outdated and harmful to the economy, the White House announced this morning.

Obama signed an executive order today that would step up oversight of the regulations issued by government agencies such as U.S. EPA and the Interior Department.

Seen as the president's latest effort to mend ties with businesses, it was first outlined by the president in an op-ed this morning in The Wall Street Journal.

Writing for an editorial page that has repeatedly slammed the administration's approach to regulation, Obama acknowledged that there are plenty of "absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money." He cited EPA's recent decision to loosen rules for saccharin -- an artificial sweetener that is considered safe by the Food and Drug Administration and is widely used in chewing gum and diet soft drinks.

"If it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste," Obama wrote.

"We won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps," he added, "but we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb."

Along with requiring agencies to take stock of existing regulations, the executive order would lay out principles for future rulemakings. All agencies would need to consider ways to reduce burdens for U.S. businesses when they develop rules, allow more public participation and better follow the scientific integrity guidelines that were released last month after a lengthy delay.

"The administration believes firmly that regulations can both be more effective and consistent with American competitiveness," a senior White House official said this morning. "It's not a question of choosing between meeting our responsibilities to protect the public health and the environment or growing the economy and creating jobs. It's really a question of how to get the balance so we can accomplish both goals most effectively."

The initiative could signal a desire at the White House to defuse some of the efforts on Capitol Hill to rein in regulations. Republicans and a few moderate Democrats have put forward a slew of bills that would put new checks on agency rulemaking (E&ENews PM, Jan. 10).

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who recently called for a "pay as you go" approach to outdated government regulations, offered support today for the president's strategy. Any company that does not review its operations or improve its procedures will inevitably go out of business, and the government should be held to the same sort of standard, he said in a statement.

"Efforts to apply more common sense to our regulatory approach can go a long way toward addressing the uncertainty that has kept the U.S. business community from participating more fully in our nation's economic recovery," Warner said.

Obama has recently reached out to businesses, meeting with corporate CEOs last month to ask how the government could help them create jobs and rebuild the economy. Industry groups were pleased by today's announcement.

"Manufacturers have been saying for some time that overregulation is harming job creation and stifling economic growth," said Aric Newhouse, senior vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, in a statement today. "This is an opportunity for the president to demonstrate results by eliminating unnecessary regulations already in the pipeline or delaying poorly thought-out proposals that are costing jobs."

Seen as an effort to mend ties with businesses, the new executive order did not sit well with many on the left, including some environmental and public health groups. They described the initiative as a rightward shift as President Obama gears up for his own re-election campaign.

Rena Steinzor, the president of the Center for Progressive Reform, said the executive order reflects an incorrect analysis and diagnosis by the White House. Current environmental problems such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, as well as economic problems such as the collapse of the housing market, could have been avoided by better rules, she said.

She also criticized the White House for putting new burdens on agencies at a time when they are already dealing with serious budget cuts.

"It was deregulation that caused the economy to crash and everyone to lose their jobs -- not regulation," said Steinzor, an environmental law professor at the University of Maryland.

Scott Slesinger, legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed that a "balanced" approach is necessary -- as long as it does not put "short-term corporate profits above the public health."

With environmentalists preparing to battle Republicans in Congress over EPA regulations, he noted, Obama's op-ed cited the Clean Air Act as a prime example of a law that is worth the cost to society.

That type of calculus was praised by cost-benefit analysis supporters such as Richard Revesz, dean of New York University's law school.

"The environment and the economy are not at odds," Revesz said today. "On the contrary, the success of each one is linked to the well-being of the other. By making this case, the president pointed to a better way of safeguarding both."

Comments from the right ?

[songsmith]

I would rather be water boarded than listen to the Kenyan lie.

Well, don't that put the dink in co-inky-dink! I'd rather waterboard you than listen to you dancing on the edge of sanity! How 'bout that!

Did you get that tingle up your leg while he spoke last night, Johnny?:lol:

All seriousness, what did you think of the speech? Was a campaign speech? or a regular speech?

I watched the repeat, later in the evening. I did get a tingle up my leg, but it was from a mini-stroke brought on by laughing at how Obama was using rightwing talking-points against the right-wing.
Pretty much all SOTU addresses during election years are campaign-based... I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise, or why it's okay for others to do it but not Big Bad O.
I felt like it started pretty slow, I almost changed the channel, until he put the spotlight on how obstructionism and elitism have stood in the way of him doing exactly what the right criticizes him for not doing. I'll remind you that I was saying exactly the same thing before Obama was even a blip on the radar, and on this website, too. While some have flip-flopped like a goldfish on a hotplate depending on who was in charge, I always pointed to Corporate America and partisan media as the culprits.
I felt like he did an average speech for him, which is generally better than anything the opposition ever comes up with.

[f.sciarrillo]

Obama NOT responsible for all debt increases. Read it and weap...

Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[5] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.[7][8] Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011,[9] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession.

Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[28]

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[29]

What left wing blog are you getting this stuff from?

Great rebuttle . You can't dispute facts...

Can you read? It states where the numbers come from...

I didn't ask you that. I asked what left wing blog you got that from. I'm not disputing anything without seeing more than just your source for it. Just because you post it from your left wing site, which probably never says anything bad about the Big O, doesn't make it fact. You would believe anything they tell you. Even if it was the sky is falling, Chicken Little !

I think you got it from MSNBC, frankly.

[Banned]

Obama NOT responsible for all debt increases. Read it and weap...

Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[5] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.[7][8] Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011,[9] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession.

Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[28]

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[29]

What left wing blog are you getting this stuff from?

Bill just cuts and pastes. He never gives the link to the source. Non of that crap is worth a second of time, its all bull.

[Banned]

Warren Buffett's secretary will be sitting with the First Lady at tonights State Of The Union Address. Who all is watching it?

I would rather be water boarded than listen to the Kenyan lie.

Well, don't that put the dink in co-inky-dink! I'd rather waterboard you than listen to you dancing on the edge of sanity! How 'bout that!

bring it on ya little fuck

[f.sciarrillo]

Bill just cuts and pastes. He never gives the link to the source. Non of that crap is worth a second of time, its all bull.

That doesn't make any of it a fact. He must know his sites are full of crap, to not give the source out. When I post about something, I always post the source, and I always look for more than one source to get my own opinion. Bill apparently gets all his information from one source and nothing more.

[lonewolf]

[Fuck that...its time for the federal government to get out of the mortgage industry...didn't anybody learn anything from 2008? DUH.

Besides, people who are underwater need to learn a lesson from this so that fewer people will make the same mistake twice. Nobody, corporate or individual, will change their bad behavior if they are rewarded for it.

Yes, we did learn something from '08: The God-like private sector was the culprit. Government oversight was the solution, not the problem, and the suggestion is, how you say, "populist bullshit." For the zillionth time, when govt allowed banks to create toxic assets (hand out money to people who clearly couldn't pay, collect fees, bundle and sell said assets to unsuspecting investors, and insure the loans via the Govt and corps like AIG), the mortgage industry engaged in a blood-orgy of profiteering, knowing full-well that the taxpayer would eventually get the bill. Who did the taxpayer give all that money to? THE BANKS. Trillions of US dollars worth. When the bad guys effed-up, we gave the bad guys even more money than they had originally stolen. Was this Obama? No. Was this black folks getting free houses? Nope. Was this Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Only one-sixth of it. The rest was Wall Street, and they should suffer criminal, prison-time penalties for it. Instead, a fully-corrupt media bangs a misinformation drum, over and over, non-stop, to convince talkshow fans that the government Americans elected is evil, that the criminals have our best interests in mind, that the 1% should be unsupervised, and that talkshow fans will soon join the 1%.
To use your own words, "Nobody, corporate or individual, will change their bad behavior if they are rewarded for it." Stop rewarding Wall St. Punish Wall Street NOW, and strenuously, and the behavior will stop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/realestat ... 0&denied=1

According to CBO, your source is a LIAR--I'm surprised he is still employed by the Post. He conveniently left out the part about how they guaranteed 3/4 of all private loans and MBS thru the secondary market. The secondary market just happens to be their raison d'etre. Nothing like a good omission...whoops! The new sub-prime cottage industry grew as a direct result of their encouragement to offer sub-prime loans to low income persons with the promise of these guarantees.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc120 ... reddie.pdf

[Hawk]

Obama NOT responsible for all debt increases. Read it and weap...

Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[5] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[6] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.[7][8] Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $14.2 trillion by February 2011,[9] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession.

Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[28]

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[29]

What left wing blog are you getting this stuff from?

Bill just cuts and pastes. He never gives the link to the source. Non of that crap is worth a second of time, its all bull.

See what I mean when I sat they can't comprehend any more than four word sound bites ? Where the stats come from are quoted IN THE ARTICLE... And you vote ?

And I tried to teach you before. (I know, it required more then four words and that does make it difficult.) All you have to do with any one's paste is to "copy" a phrase from it. Said phrase immediately goes to your search engine and takes you directly to the source.

I have no reason to hide anything from you...like you...who won't forward your right wing Emails to me.

[Hawk]

Bill just cuts and pastes. He never gives the link to the source. Non of that crap is worth a second of time, its all bull.

That doesn't make any of it a fact. He must know his sites are full of crap, to not give the source out. When I post about something, I always post the source, and I always look for more than one source to get my own opinion. Bill apparently gets all his information from one source and nothing more.

Wow, don't you EVER get tired of being so____. The sources for the stats are in the article... How do you guys get by in life ?

[f.sciarrillo]

Nice rebuttal, bill. Why don't you just say that you get your information from MSNBC and get it over with.

[Banned]

Bill, those of us not brainwashed like you determine if an article is worth reading by first judging the source. If you would ever name and link your sources, no one would ever waste a second of their lives reading the liberal drivel you cut and paste.

Provide a link or post your own original thoughts. Ha ha , that second part is real funny.

[Banned]

Nice rebuttal, bill. Why don't you just say that you get your information from MSNBC and get it over with.

I'm talking about the site you got the information from! DOH!

You are skipping Moveon.ug, Huffingwaste.com, and anything George Soros underwrites.

[Hawk]

Nice rebuttal, bill. Why don't you just say that you get your information from MSNBC and get it over with.

Blatent stupidity ! IT SAYS The Pew Center and it says Peter Oszarg !

[Hawk]

Now that you've spent all of your time insulting me, dispute the facts from the Pew Center.

[f.sciarrillo]

Nice rebuttal, bill. Why don't you just say that you get your information from MSNBC and get it over with.

Blatent stupidity ! IT SAYS The Pew Center and it says Peter Oszarg !

Give links to the site you got it from and I will read it! You schmuck!

[Banned]

Nice rebuttal, bill. Why don't you just say that you get your information from MSNBC and get it over with.

Blatent stupidity ! IT SAYS The Pew Center and it says Peter Oszarg !

Provide the link and we would know that and then might make a determination that the article is worth reading. But if you post it, never-mind, most non koolaid drinkers know better.