NCclimber

Seems like just "not screwing up" might deserve a 50% rating. More than 3/4ths the time? Right. Speaking of bias... http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/10/compare_and_con.html On another situation... funny how that whole Rathergate business died down in a matter of days. National network anchor involved in story that could impact a presidentia lelection. Evidence found to be fraudulent and unsubstantiated. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Hey! how 'bout that Britney Spears???

There's already one thread about getting chubbie(s). You kids try not to make too much of a mess with one.

What did the Dems do to receive 77% favorable coverage?

Accuracy in Media tend to address issues that support the right side of the fence, but I can't recall anyone showing that AIM's claims are flawed. It's funny. You have media bigwigs coming out of the woodwork saying "Yes. There is a liberal bias in the media", but no one is claiming a conservative media bias - except disgruntled ex-FoxNews employees. And not many people are claiming Fox is neutral and objective. Here's an interesting study on media bias that came out a few years ago, http://economics.missouri.edu/Working_Paper_Series/2005/wp0501_milyo.pdf

Nope not a coup d' etat....You really do need to read more of the writings of GENERAL THOMAS FRANKS... He and others are of the mind that ANY further Terrorist event in this country WILL bring about martial law. That is far different... and with GWB and his henchmen in power.. I for one do NOT put it past them to encourage thru inaction an incident to remain in power past their being voted out of office. You could stand to read what he actual said, too... which was along the lines "if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties" might cause "our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event."

Someone should forward this thread to Mike Nifong.

Got a link to support your claim that the right predicted "hundreds of thousands" would be unemployed" if minimum wage were raised?

I already did. Some people have a knack for overlooking the obvious.

Nice post.

You might want to do a little research on that phrase. You seem to use it incorrectly. Is NPR okay? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6619460 Can you provide a link from a respectable source, that echoes your dramatic claims?

fixed it. We all have our own version of reality. It's kind of creepy how some people's default setting is to be constantly victimized by imaginary boogeymen. The multi million dollar scaremongering TV and radio ad campaign was not imaginary. Just full of bogus predictions of economic gloom. Turned out that the minimum wage increase was the bogeyman, and the FL Chamber of Commerce got the creeps from it. People's Weekly World Newspaper, 11/04/04 12:51 TAMPA, Fla. — One of the bright spots in Florida was the passage of the amendment for an increase in the state minimum wage, starting at $6.15 an hour and beginning six months after enactment. The wage is to be annually indexed to inflation thereafter. Amendment 5, one of eight ballot initiatives here, won with 71 percent of the vote, 4,834,437 votes to 1,990,465. It appears that the amendment got more votes than Bush. It passed despite a massive ad campaign on radio and television to defeat it. The only ballot initiative that got a higher vote was a patient’s right to know provision about medical mistakes, which won with 81 percent of the vote. Excerpts from The Daily Comrade. Good stuff. And on the flips side: I've even been known to use Fox. Doesn't affect the facts one iota. The right ran a scaremongering campaign that turned out to be totally bogus. Look up "Coalition to Save Florida Jobs" and see how much money it spent on its sky-will-fall ad campaign before the 2004 election, and where that money came from. Crack me up... comparing a communist propaganda web page to a national mainstream news organization. Your commie sourced "news" overstates the drama more than any other source I could find. And I looked. What I did find was news that the scaremongering you're so fond of mentioning, was done by both sides. Some people tend to view smarmy tactics as good or bad, depending solely on whether they support the cause or not. Posting "information" from overtly ultra-left sites has about as much credibility using Rush Limbaugh's columns as objective sources. If never seen the later happen, even though accusations that people got their information from Rush is a common charge around here.

Such a level of education and ability to use the English language is not exclusive of illegal aliens. In any case, why is that so important? As long as they are working their asses off for a few dollars to feed their families and not causing any trouble, why does it even matter if they are fluent in English or not? The translation of "it's a pretty safe bet" is "I have absolutely no data". For someone who professes (sarcasm intended) to shape young people's minds, you do have a penchant for cheapshot posts. I'm sure you're quite a role model. For all the posters who think opposition to ILLEGAL immigration is just a matter of bigotry and xenophobia, I recommend you read up on the issue. Maybe you could even read what those with different ideologies have to say about it.

OOPS The quote I posted said: "If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion" That still comes out to $3300 per capita, including paying taxes.

1) The study was based on a population of 8.7 million, so your per capita cost is $1877. 2) "If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion" Which would result in a per capita cost of $5087, which is nearly 6 times the amount you estimated for citizens.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Yes. Try to do better next time. That $10 billion figure is the net cost.

fixed it. We all have our own version of reality. It's kind of creepy how some people's default setting is to be constantly victimized by imaginary boogeymen. The multi million dollar scaremongering TV and radio ad campaign was not imaginary. Just full of bogus predictions of economic gloom. Turned out that the minimum wage increase was the bogeyman, and the FL Chamber of Commerce got the creeps from it. People's Weekly World Newspaper, 11/04/04 12:51 TAMPA, Fla. — One of the bright spots in Florida was the passage of the amendment for an increase in the state minimum wage, starting at $6.15 an hour and beginning six months after enactment. The wage is to be annually indexed to inflation thereafter. Amendment 5, one of eight ballot initiatives here, won with 71 percent of the vote, 4,834,437 votes to 1,990,465. It appears that the amendment got more votes than Bush. It passed despite a massive ad campaign on radio and television to defeat it. The only ballot initiative that got a higher vote was a patient’s right to know provision about medical mistakes, which won with 81 percent of the vote. Excerpts from The Daily Comrade. Good stuff. And on the flips side:

So, you're saying all illegals in this country speak english? I don't think so! I can't speak for the legal immigrants, but the annual cost of ILLEGAL immigrants is damaging to the tune of $10 Billion per year. Actually, there are a number of laws against ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that are not being enforced. I think it was John Adams who said: "We are a nation of laws"

[reply>Kind of supports my first two points, that you refuted... don't you think? "Many" does not equal "all." What are you talking about? I never said anything about "all" illegals! First you claim I said no one spoke English, which was untrue. Now you're your using examples of extremism to refute my mainstream points. You seem to use extremes to distract from the main picture. Is this what they mean by red herrings?

fixed it. We all have our own version of reality. It's kind of creepy how some people's default setting is to be constantly victimized by imaginary boogeymen.

I haven't kept up, so this may have already been addressed: To the people who voted for zero innocent people going to jail - are you also saying that no one should go to jail unless we are absolutely, undeniable, completely certain that they are guilty of the crimes for which they are charged?

Why do you think they should be exempt from paying any income tax?

Anyone else see the irony here? Hypothetically speaking. Of course, you're talking about brief visits... not moving there!!! Kind of supports my first two points, that you refuted... don't you think? In small doses, I agree completely... but the example you made is far different from what is becoming the norm in areas like east LA. I think there are a fair number of Americans who would disagree with you on this.

You seem to have taken offense at my last post. Which parts where "entirely speculative and unpersuasive? It wasn't meant to "prove anyone wrong". I was offering up my .02, which is pretty much in line mainstream thinking. As far as whether or not Florida's MW increase was harmful, the current picture indicates it's had limited adverse effects.

what are the differences You mean besides the obvious,... that Clinton's pic was done well and Newt's looked like it was taken and cropped by incompetent dolts?