Lucky...

Thank you, the voice of reason. And who pays for schools, roads, etc? Tax cits in times where the rich hold most of the money is just corporate welfare. Tax cuts when wealth is fairly disrtributed is equity and positive capitalism. It's time for tax increases to spur private reinvestment, you know that. Unless it's odd timing, you just voted that tax cuts pay for themselves while stating they don't.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing. Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is: CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it. Fortunatley there are many studies that show you dont know what you are taling about here CBS Cenrtist???? Now that is funny Yes, these studies are all found on Heritage, right?The big 3 are cemntrist, show me otherwise. Just because your scale is skewed far right doesn't make the middle become left. MY SCALE IS SCEWED??? Oh boy that is a good one Oh, and here is one very conservative school study of media bias http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx Speaking of a biased source, you never fail to please http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5845 As it turned out, Milyo's grant money for his study came from an organization created by Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, the former Bush/Cheney '04 national general counsel, and one of the Republican Party's top operatives behind pushing for such photo ID laws around the country. Hearne was, in fact, instrumental in creating the very Indiana law which Milyo's study claims to show, has caused no voter disenfranchisement in the state. It goes on and gets worse. Rush, sometimes you should actually check your sources before you look more and more silly . Gotta go to work, I'll look fwd to more levity.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing. Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is: CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it. Fortunatley there are many studies that show you dont know what you are taling about here CBS Cenrtist???? Now that is funny Yes, these studies are all found on Heritage, right?The big 3 are cemntrist, show me otherwise. Just because your scale is skewed far right doesn't make the middle become left.

So, you're calling out "name-droppers" by dropping a name. This is an objective name, not some RW / Libertarian sociopath cutting taxes in the name of corporate welfare. He was appointed by your annointed fascist leader, how could he be all bad?

So you're saying you're a neo-con now? It's hard keeping up with your wild gyrations. Or you could comment on the tax cutting repeating itself into disaster, but that means you would actually have to stick to the topic and that won't happen.

And if you get to a point where almost everything seems centrist (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary), it may be that you are a little more left than you think you are. See, you show your RW bias here by not equally opposing Bill: If you get to a point where it seems almost everyone is to the left, it may not be that they are really to the left - it may be that you are a little more right than you think you are. He's goijng one extreme to the other, you're calling teh centrist a bunch of lefties. Mike, you're just obvious - with us or against us.

And the alphabet soup networks are pretty unique in that if there is a bias, it is guaranteed to be left wing. Right, Mike, with us or against us. See, if you look at FOX, Nwesmax, etc as the standard and the rest are silly LW factions to various degrees, then your logic makes sense. Truth is: CENTRIST: ABC, CBS, NBC LEFT: CNN, Moveon, etc RIGHT: FOX, Limbaugh, etc You can't use your majic sliding scale here, just because they don't raise the RW doesn't make them LW; this is what Bill was saying as I see it.

For all you name-droppers, this is from Greenspan. Reagan appointee, Clinton extended him and well as others may have. This guy is non-partisan and saw years of both parties run thru. He is pro tax cut, but when times are better. So come on, name droppers, this is an objective source who was right there when the economy was way up and way down, what say you?

Constraint means they want to agress, but control themselves. So I disagree, women are nurturers so they don't have the same aggressive motives that men do. Men typically jump to violence as a reaction, some men use constraint but have the desire to be violent. Again, it's how we're wired and I don't want a woman in combat, I want want in other positions tho. Yep, not to say that every matter needs a woman to make it happen.

Only because we provoke people via interference. The world is in a sort of checkmate, all teh bigs have nukes and no one is so stupid as to use them. So all that, A Few Good Men bravado is basically BS, no offense. That's why I say spend teh money protecting our infrastructure, the world will respect us more for it. Sounds good, but we don't neeed to spend that kind of money on needless toys. Leaving them alone as well as the ME is a good idea. OBL was fired up with the Gulf War, Saudi told them to stay out of it and eventually pulled OBL's passport and so he retaliated. Again, we ask for our own missery. I wouldn't say most, I'd say the extremists on the low end and the extremists on teh high end (The US) are the biggest threats; the middle is just fine. Love your, "I know more than you" BS. You're just about to break out into a Jack Nicholson, "You and your faggoty white uniforms...." rant, huh? Gee, I wish I were as worldly as you (JOKE). You're position is to antagonize teh world and see who dares to poke their head up rather than try to create peace and become a small to non-target to those radical groups/countries. Whenever I find myself in shit, that SOB in the mirror usually has the most blame, the same can be said at all levels. BTW, who0's after Sweeden?

Were you working with those Billion dollar programs out there, or were you a loadmaster of a C-141? I worked on B-52's, I worked the alert pad a few times and was a crew chief. So yes, I worked on the live shit. I also worked on the B-1 in manufacturing and the Longbow too. Yes, I get it. And yes, we have waaaaay too huge of a military, most of the conflucts we have - we started or at least perpetuated.

Me neither. National opinions and identity differ country to country. Not all of us military type believe in the "jealous of us" crap. True, but B-2's and other multi-billion dollar machines won't get us safe. We need more homeland security and less intervention into their business. AQ is only out to get us because we deliver, deliver young men and women to be targets. Let's defend our borders and make fewer great service people vulnerable. I never have. Radical factions and countries have nothing in common, unless teh country is providing safehaven and /or money/supplies. Don't apologize, you're not waking me up. I served 30 years ago and was in Guam, I get primordial cultures. Yep, we just have never tried the 2nd damned; maybe we should. Again, we've tried the first damned (aggression), let's try the 2nd damned (peace / noninvolvement).

I don't think the world is jealous of us pumping ourselves into debt building a way-overbuilt military. 1) Who's out to get us? 2) Our policies bring aggression upon us. 3) We need to pay down teh debt, provided things for our citizens, etc. But you think we need to build our military up even more?

Do you mean this one is rhetorical: You can never have "enough" money for Education or Defense. Mine certainly isn't.

So basically, we can agree that an un-biased news source doesn't exist? I think they do or they are so mildly biased it isn't worth mentioning. Basically when they start to editorialize, esp hang their shingle on that they become biased.

And you called her "ugly" in a few diff ways and I said you should retract, you did and now feel I PA'd you. You've said nothing new here, so cry me a fucking river and/or go back to beating up little girls. Gov sources, BEA, BLS, IRS, Etc. Wikipedia is objective and I have never found it to be errant, but that isn't a bad source either. Stay away from CNN, MSNBC, Cato, Heritage, FOX, Etc. It was first coined in 1921 per my former research, I would imagine to describe the conservative movement from that of caring of peopel to that of caring of the rich; the GOP truned ugly in the 1920's as we all know. More contemporarily it means garbage like fascist pig Ronnie for morphing from a Dem to an R as I have found. It seems that those who get slammed by labels tend to try to create confusion with the terms so as to dillute their meanings.

We spend 8 times what #2 spends, match the world in military spending and you say not enough? Jebus Fucking Christ.

Cry me a river, after you disparage an innocent little girl by calling her "ugly" due to your hate for her parents, now you've developed hurt feelings over nothing me telling you you should retract. Does MSNBC have left bias? Slightly, no support is needed. As for factual references, I don;t care if people use sites that often biased, but when they then rely on the editorial from said site, it just gets stupid. For that matter, editorial form most sites is worthless, if I wanted to argue with some Libertarian PhD I would do so directly. Neo-cons look for someone with a degree or a website, post their BS and call it good. I like objecctive data and to draw my own conclusions, then banter that about, I realize most conservatives aren't that motivated.

Agreed... However... As opposed to CNN or MSNBCs bias? I see, your side can post the bias, scream if we do. I say that we all don't when relying on them for hard credibility. In fact, let's us make the arguments, rely on external source for data and otehr support. But neo-cons don't do that much, they ride the coattials of some pundit with an agenda.

Paris

I watched Meet the Press and then RNC Chair Ken Mehlman said congress saw the exact same intel that Bush did. Russert then said an independent investigation by the Washingtom Post revealed otherwise. Mehlman then said that Congress saw basically the same intel that Bush saw. Yea, love this BS w/o a citation of which reports they were. So no mention of the low int rates? Hmmmm, the low rates caused the artifical appreciation, as borrowers could qualify for more with low rates. I wonder why the rate shad to be lowered? Oh yea, receipts were down with the tax rate. Yea, no mention of that. http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-2-166 Altho I can't find any GWB deregulations, other than with employment, sitting back and being apathetic is a form off deregulation via watching a market in need of regulation go to hell. Kinda like a cop watching a rape; he becomes complicit. I wonder why Graham-Leach-Bliliey wasn't directly mentioned? Could it be that those three stooges are all ultra-conservative Republicans? Yep, everythibng but the truth? A bill written by, sponsored by 3 hard-core Repubs and no mention. Again, there would have likely been a mortgage mess of small size, but w/o the low int rates there would have been no massive nighmare, as the houses would foreclose and sell for approximately what was borrowed against them. I don't see supporting ev, but even if Wall Street did contribute more to D's, how does that make them the party of Wall Street? Again, no supporting ev. A major reason why some Wall Streeters donated to Obama is due to the obvious election victory in Nov 08, these people saw teh writing and went with the obvious winner. Show me how Wall Street investors differ from typical Repub COnservative values, tax cuts, etc. Moral conservative ideals you mean. As in anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, etc. Nice wadding up all values in one mess. The parties were in transition as to their race positions. The Southern Yellow Dogs, now hard-core Republicans, have always been racist but were then Dems. This point is just dishonest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely. It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. See, the Dems were the racist segregationists THEN, NOT NOW. This is what this lame-ass is referring to: Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. So again, the Mississippi Senator would have canned the bill, but Senator Mansfield from Montana took the bill and had the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. This led to a fillibuster, but eventually did pass. So again, the Southern redneck trash tried to kill it, a northern Dem senator went against precedent and got it through. Even against Southern redneck resistance, it was still passed by a far larger number of Dems than R's: By party The original House version:[10] Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%) Republican Party: 138-34 (80%–20%) Cloture in the Senate:[11] Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%) The Senate version:[10] Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House:[10] Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%) And then regionally: Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%) Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%) The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%) Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%) So once again, more smoke/mirrors from your BS reference. http://naacp.com/about/history/ Founded in 1909, as Teddy Roosevelt was leaving office; teh R's were still an awesome party. The D's, as when Lincoln won, were still the racist pigs then. This is no news, nothing spectacular. No, maybe the voters aren't as stupid as originally thought. Maybe the voters understand that the parties have switched their ideologies, esp according to race relations. Love all the claims and no support.

"Do as I say, not as I do" crosses all regious and geographical lines that it's just moot. I agree.

No shit and to wrap all conservative ideals into 1 mess and make them transcend time is just retarded. Even tho the Repub Party fiscally changed in the 1920's, the racial profile was somewhat up in teh air until cemented in the 1960's. Of ciourse they went more racist after that or at least their electorate went that way so did the party. Funny to watch the Republican pundits squirm in denial.

In good neo-con fashion, it must be just 1 thing. Low taxes didn't cause the GD, they just killed recovery and then taxes were raised and eventually recovery was realized. There is no majic number, just that < 50% things get questionable, < 40% immenent, < 30% just fucked. Unlike your black/white perspective, lowering the rate creates a regressively worse scenario; there is no falloff point. So again no response. WOW, how unexpected. If you want to ignore 100 years of data and go on your RW hunch, I'm good, you have just failed to even show up for the argument. Of course you and your lemmings don't think so, but you also don't like objective data as it really doesn't flatter your position. I don't have to do anything, I have 100 years of tax data that shows a trend that when taxes are lowered, the economy undergoes debt and other catastrophes. Even under Hover pre-FDR social programs the RW majic wand didn't work, how is it gonna work now that we have social safety nets? Even if you want to be a good little Republican/Libertarian socipath, you still can't wave the wand enough to make this mess go away by cutting taxes; the exact opposite thing that works.

Or...... just go away, you don't add anythign anyway. See, redneckpublicans only want to surround themselves with ideas they like, which is why they are closed-minded regressives.