idrankwhat

How about this one? Parts 2 and 3 are linked in the lower right panel. Part 2 is where it takes off. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220536&title=jim-cramer-pt.-1

Shhh.....don't talk about our allies like that. People might get the impression that we're insincere.

Actually I think he did pretty well considering how badly he was out gunned. Once "Roll 210" was played, I think he knew that he had no chance to even bring it to a draw. I think Stewart did a fantastic job of being a gracious host while simultaneously holding his guest's feet to the fire. Damn well done. Too bad we have to go to a comedy channel to find integrity in journalism. Here's to Jon edited 212 to 210. He was done earlier than I remembered.

For abdicating their war making responsibility, consistently ceding power to the executive and failing in their oversight duties? I think that's a great idea.

Yea, they are at two ends of the scale. My point was the size of the scale. The minimum wage worker would have to work for nearly one thousand years to equal one year of compensation for the CEO. That's a ridiculous amount of compensation, especially when you consider that the toilet cleaner did a better job.

Perspective is a heck of a thing. According to Executive Paywatch, if you cleaned the toilets at AIG, 40 hours per week at minimum wage,: You would have to work 950 years to equal Martin J. Sullivan's 2007 compensation, using the SEC Total. You would have to work 925 years, according to the AFL-CIO Total.

Quite probably. It reminds me of a similarly curious habit witnessed on the left coast

Looks like that ice is pissed at the GW crowd. Actually I think the ice was more pissed at the real estate speculators who helped screw up our economy as well as those government programs that reward people for building in known ice planes. So I guess the real question is, will the insurance companies deny coverage because the owners don't have "ice insurance"?

I'd like to buy you a

Actually that was the Republican led Congress which did that a few years back. It was just about the only economic stimulation idea that they got right

Psssst......................."Bone Bonds" dude.

Some of the best news commentary out there

Actually I was just having fun at the expense of a bone headed (no offense to Bonehead) criminal. But to address your question, I think that a civilized society benefits as a whole from investing in a healthy and well educated society. I don't mind being taxed in order to help the less fortunate help themselves. Blind handout? No. Helpful incentives? Yes. I agree but it's interesting that you put those folks together in the same example. GWB had connections that few people have which paved his way. Many in the entertainment industry get similar connections handed to them (insert Brady Bunch reference) if "the suit fits". (damn I feel old). In both cases, those connections were utilized by the connectors for their own benefit, mostly at the expense of the public's best interest. But someone also should not be rewarded with someone else's money simply by being connected to the political donor class.

Not everyone has that aptitude. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/odd_thirsty_suspect

I voted yes. Legalize it. Tax it. Regulate it. It would be a serious blow to the "war" on drugs, saving us tons of money. We'd have fewer people in prison for non violent crimes, saving us tons of money. It's been proven to have significant medicinal value. I don't view it as any worse than alcohol, actually I think it's less harmful than alcohol. It would be a significant source of revenue.

I'm not sure I understand their "logic" either. I signed the petition but I can't take the pledge that they want me to. While I don't buy things with fur I have no problem buying things like leather. I know where my food comes from, and try to buy my animal products from sources who treat their animals humanely. I think all of the animal should be used, except when it comes to things like using cattle waste products to feed chickens, whose waste is then fed to cattle. We've got some serious issues here on our own home front to contend with. As for the lobster question, I prefer a quick dispatch with a chef's knife prior to boiling or grilling.

I fully understand the point that you're trying to make. You think that a heavy hitter in the CEO world deserves the parachute because of his achievements to date and that the consequences of his bad decisions are significant because you're comparing them to what he COULD have made. IMO, he took the risky contract and the POTENTIAL pot of gold (along with a guaranteed VERY comfortable living) was his prize. He fell short, completely ruined the livelihood of the thousands of workers who were relying on him, and now says that he deserves his multimillion dollar parachute even though his defunct company can't meet the pension obligations that were guaranteed to the workers. He knew the risks going in. By your measure he was successful prior to getting his latest gig so he should have put some away in safe investments in case the worst happened and he failed. My opinion is that your claim of "responsibility for your actions" comes in different shades. And by the way, this discussion completely ignores such things as the student loans that the $50K/yr small business owner has to pay off regardless of bankruptcy (thanks to legislation written by the banking CEO's), the fact that the heavy hitter CEO was able use tax increment financing to plop his business across the street from the $50K dude, or worse yet, take the $50K guy's property through an imminent domain deal with the local government.

Ok, first it's this: "At the same time if the same guy tries his best and falls on his face and goes home with the million dollar door prize, he still deserves it cuz he took the risk that many wouldnt and couldnt take! Then it's this: "And falling on your face from your own stupidity of over spending and getting ear deep in debt isn't punishment, it's your own dumb fault for putting a hurtle in front of you that you knew you couldnt leap over. the balance of the universe, cause and effect, owning up to your own repsonsibility, or should the working class be able to do whatever they want and get hand outs from the government ... when they can't keep up with their spending habits ? So, which is it? Responsibility and consequences for your actions or not?

Good for them! Most of em earned it! The ones the media glorify to make wealthy job-creators appear so evil don't, but the majority do, props! That's an interestingly bold cry out in support of welfare. But help me out, how does running your company into the ground to the point that it can't meet its pension agreements, lays off thousands of workers and needs a taxpayer funded bailout qualify as "earning" a bonus?

Bye......3......2.....1.....

Maybe by spending the money on things like education, high speed rail, and alternative energy technology/infrastructure as opposed to throwing off-budget appropriated cash out of the back of a truck in Mesopotamia. Admittedly however, spending without cutting will be problematic. I think that this is a step in the right direction.

Looks great! Now the best part, breaking out the power tools and poking holes in that fine piece of artwork!

That's a done deal, it's history. The fact that there will be no bridge is water under the bridge. It's a "trickle up" philosophy. I think it's worth a shot since the reciprocal failed so miserably. I liken it to building a house by starting at the foundation and working upwards as opposed to starting by putting down layer after layer of shingles.