Lucky...

The Cato Inst is less credible than even the Heritage Foundation. Once I read Cato saying FDR tripled taxes I knew they were either liars or stupid. 1.6B in 1933 to 5.3B in 1940. To the rest of the world, that's 3.3X. I guess it's different for liars, the stupid or in Lucky-ville. Tax receipts may have trippled, just as they are increasing now after your hero left this mess and Obama has started to bring it around, but to say taxes have trippled means that the tax rate trippled. I like my version of stupid over yours; mine is more honest - yours deceitful. I realize conservatives think tax reciepts are bad, the chart clearly shows that: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue All evidence shows that tax receipts increasing lead to a healthy economy, the very one your illustration described. In case ya don't understand, there was much healing between 1933 and 1940. Hoover raised taxes, the income tax rate 260% in June 1932, so I see it worked as tax revs shot way up and we started to heal.

How about the costs of not having this, as you call it, parasitic government? - Elderly die in the streets - Great Deprssion, caused by Wall Street, would have virtually ended this nation w/o intervention - GWB's mortgage mess / bank shutdown would have killed this nation w/o gov intervention - All teh diseases controlled/educated by the CDC - Schools, HC, on and on and on..... W/o gov, this nation would be shit, but you want to think we can go w/o and be fine, huh? Look at nations w/o gov, 3rd world nations, usually a corrupt regime surfaces to act as government. Just brilliant

The Cato Inst is less credible than even the Heritage Foundation. Once I read Cato saying FDR tripled taxes I knew they were either liars or stupid.

Oh I don't think you and your manicured fingernails should be talking about whipping my ass. What personal accountability? I don't disprage kids, presidents or otherwise; you make no sense. By saying, "And you continue...." You are agreeing but supplementing; nice to see you agree.

I rarely, if ever respond to your post. Does that mean I agree with you? Quite the opposite. I don't waste my time on meaningless drivel. Your logic (or total lack of) is fatally flawed if you believe no response to your babbling is agreeing. Apparently you didn't put it together, he responded to part of my post, ignored the tuff stuff; if you were as sharp as you claimed, you would have put that together. If a person ignores the entire post, there's no way to establish they read it, he did read it and respond to only part - not real difficult.

I don't always agree with airdvr, but I honestly don't know how you could disagree with him on this one. Both sides do it, it's wrong no matter who does it. Is this politics? Why is this conversation still going? How come the rest of you don't have the integrity to just say that it was wrong no matter who does it, and move on? The guy who actually said it, admitted it was wrong. How is this still an argument? Of course it's wrong, it's just that the other side has only mustered Bill Maher, a leftist comedian who doesn't advocate going out and registering/voting for any party, he just has fun with Republican idiots. The other side has cited at least 3 recent incidents, including last election's GOP nominee who called an 18 yo girl, ugly. That's the issue; it's wrong, so far only evidence posted is that the right is doing it.

So many dorks...... so many adulterers..... living up to that wonderful FAMILY VALUES buzz word... since that is all it really is to so many on the far fringe right I wonder which preacher will be the next one to be outed by his wife because of his gay lover????? Hey, screw women, screw men, just leave the kids alone, MCCAIN!

You do a great Elmer Fudd, maybe a little too good

Give me your version of McCain's calling Chelsea, ugly. Or is this just a distraction?

Where'd ya find it, in your special tool box? Fun to ignore a filthy pig like McCain, with his grotesque remark?

I guess you don't take well to Bill's warnings. This is a case of 1 grotesque remark about an innocent 18yo girl, a good kid, is too much. I love allowable limits for forbidden bahavior from the party of family values. This is the point I was making, if the left made such an idiotic remark, it would be acceptable since as the RW maggots say, we're all a bunch of hedonistic, saddistic, homosexual-loving anti-Americans. Whereas your party is the one that loves America and its fine family values. THAT'S THE HYPOCRISY, WHAT YOU'RE *TRYING* TO SAY IS THAT I'M ESTABLISHING A DOUBLE-STANDARD. As for you supporting some conservative ideals, you pretty much all do whereas as I support the ideals of most liberals, but have a couple cross-overs. If we took a test that had to weigh or ideological spot on the continuum, I would be firmly planted left, you firmly right, which is why I find it funny and unbelievable that you voted for Obama. As for more on 3 insults, these are children, UNLIKE CONSERVATIVE LOGIC, THE TOLERANCE IS ZERO.

I know, how petty to think the guy you voted for called an innocent 18 yo girl, ugly. He's my hero too. Riiiiight,keep pretending you voted for Obama, yet supporting conservative ideals; we really believe you. You mean encyclopdic. But you're right, your heroes, which you constantly defend, have only done this a handful of times, entirely negligible in your world.

See, you have to post who said what and then qualify and quantify it. IOW's, if a person in here makes a statement about someone's kids, who cares? May be taseless, but not in accord with this thread. If a fringe media guy that has no influence makes the same type remark, slightly more important but still mostly irrelevant. If a media personality who has political clout makes an off-color remark, that's higher yet, as that person is part of the political circle. And teh highest is if a politician or candidate makes an off-color remark. So, post who said what and let's qualify/quantify it. Not to mention if it's true and criminal, that certainly knocks the edge off slander. In fact, it's an affirmative defense. I don't expect you will.

Ever heard of Ted Turner? Turner was pretty straight down the middle. It was his involvement with Fonda that gave the impression he was tainted, but he was actually pretty middle of the road. CNN under Turner was pretty decent when it came to staying in the middle. That said, Turner hasn't been in charge of CNN for many, many years. And it's not really that it's drifted off center, but rather it's drifted into foolishness and just poor journalism in general. It's like they're not even trying. The same can NOT be said for Murdock and his minions. They really never have been fair or balanced in any way. That was never their goal no matter what their catch phase may attempt to indicate. Not to mention Fox's parent company being partially sold to Muslims who said we deserved 911. So the owners / chair sold to the enemy, essentially.

Ever heard of Ted Turner? It's a liberal conspiracy.... Ted's helicopter is right outside. Are you telling me that Americans are so weak that the media tells them who to vote for? And the media is mostly left, per you, so explain how the R's have run the show for most of 30 years. God it's easy to debunk your logic.

They were trained. They just didn't heed the lessons very well. The captain had flunked a few sim rides before finally passing. Certainly he was not at the top of the class. The F/O was derelict in her duties of maintaining a sterile cockpit and monitoring the performance of the captain, which was deficient. I would put them down as ineffective and unprofessional at best. Sorry. The stick shaker triggered and idiot pulled back. They had to have had the training, just used it as an obstacle rather than a real lesson. I heard the audio of the minutes lesding to the crash and the Captain sounded unaware and green.

You declare the mainstream media as liberal, now it's just mainstream media. As for R candidates, McCain was the least abrasive, extreme, etc. I don't think any media really has that much impact on a presidential run. Are you going to change your perspective if teh Dems run ads or the media slants issues on their own? I'm not. Do you have examples, I didn't notice that. I agree. I didn't hear that firsthand, but I believe it. This is my point, Bill Maher was/is a leftist pundit, but he doesn't campaign for one or the other or try to sway anyone, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc try to medal in politics and have more influence than many politicians.

You're doing the best you can. I do know why you're unwilling to address your hero for calling an innocent 18yo girl, ugly. Nope, the Bush girls were partiers who disregarded laws under the protection of the secret svs until the finally were caught. Committing crimes as a 19yo render that little childhood innocense void, not to mention, who said what? YOU NEVER HAVE POSTED SLANDEROUS REMARKS FROM DEMS, so for once, make a point.

I know, how petty to think the guy you voted for called an innocent 18 yo girl, ugly. He's my hero too.

THat was his skit where he was impersonating a human.

[reply No shit, really , I didn't know what that meant . I spew hate for most Republicans, as they are garbage with legs. I have extreme dislike for people who want to exclude others and hate for those who then exploit kids to further their agenda. Right, AKA running. Hey, I'm over it just as you are over McCain calling Chelsea, ugly. Oh wait, you never had an issue with that You're right, I think there were 3 altogether between Chelsea and Obama's kids, that is entirely negligible; my bad. And you may return to impersonating someone of conscience.

Agreed. Chelsea didn't actually DO anything to warrant a comment from anybody. She didn't do anything illegal, she didn't say anything political, she was simply existing. And let's be realistic here, a comment about a young woman's appearance is pretty fucking low. That's quite a bit different than the Bush twins getting arrested for public drunkenness or, in the case of Elizabeth Cheney, actively making political statements. +1

Took about 3 seconds on Google to spot. I'm still trying to find your post on how outraged you were at this. I can't find where you were offended about Letterman's joke about 14 year old Willow either. Want to see hypocrisy, skippy? Buy a mirror with that cash you're saving on insurance premiums. Letterman: Hardly a leftist pundit, that's just bizzare to cite Letterman, Leno, Conan, etc Maher: Again, even tho a leftist, he doesn't have the left electorate looming around hanging on his every word as do Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. And that was in reference to how Edwards fucks everything, so it was totally an Edwaeds slam. I agree that he shouldn't have referenced Palin's kid. But most horrible is for politicians to do it, then political commentators who are constantly active in partisan politics. The McCain comment was just so far over the top it is pathetic and then he gets nominate for pres 10 years later.

The Dems got McCain nominated . Good one. And the R's got Obama nominated . So who did the conservs support and why did whomever that was not get nominated in the primaries? That just makes no sense. I understand you're saying the mainstream media, but it's the electorate who nominates. As for likeable, he is the most likeable R, which shows us where the rest are.

I notice that there is no mention of how wrong it is to do similar bashing to Bush's daughters . . . What is life like being so single minded? 1) Post remarks made about them. 2) Include their criminal convictions for drinking/ID/etc. A 19 yo who is drinking is posing herself as an adult and I think she was drinking at