Lou Dobbs Tonight caption: "Do-Nothing Dems?"
A December 19 report on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight featured the graphic "Do-Nothing Dems?" But, as the report noted, Democrats will not actually assume control of Congress for a little over two weeks.
In the report, CNN correspondent Lisa Sylvester asserted that, despite Democratic campaign pledges to "implement all of the 9-11 Commission recommendations," Democrats are "now conceding that's harder than they thought." But rather than showing a clip of a Democrat presumably affirming Sylvester's lead-in, CNN cut to Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).
From the December 19 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
KITTY PILGRIM (guest host): In just over two weeks, Congress returns to Washington with Democrats in charge, and they'll have to deliver on promises they made that helped them become the majority. Lisa Sylvester matches the campaign pledges with political reality.
SYLVESTER: Democrats are determined to be the do-something Congress. They rode in on Capitol Hill on a reform agenda. First on their to-do list, tackle the low-hanging fruit. The less controversial stuff, raising the minimum wage and giving college students a tax break.
BILL PRESS (radio talk-show host): They'll try to do a few things that are very popular that are doable. And then they can say, "Look, we've got success." So they may not achieve everything, but I think they'll -- their goal is just to achieve enough to show, we know what we're doing.
SYLVESTER: But it's questionable if the more difficult promises will be kept. Take Iraq: Democrats on the campaign trail pledged to begin bringing back U.S. troops from Iraq in phases next year. That may hit a brick wall with the political reality.
MICHAEL FRANC (Heritage Foundation vice president for government relations): Suddenly, campaign rhetoric may sound a little bit hollow when it comes to actually coming up with on-the-ground, realistic, viable solutions to the situation for the next six months, the next year, and thereafter.
SYLVESTER: Democrats also vowed to implement all of the 9-11 Commission recommendations. They're now conceding that's harder than they thought.
PRICE: In terms of terrorists, tracking, financing of terrorists, tracking that money, in terms of setting up appropriate committees for homeland security, all those kinds of things ought to be enacted. And, in fact, now they're saying that's not what they plan on doing.
SYLVESTER: House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] promised to drain the swamp of corruption in Washington to curb lobbyists' influence on Capitol Hill. Lobbyists are already lobbying against any changes. And campaign contributions have a way of winning friends, Republicans and Democrats alike.
FRANC: The question is whether the new boss is going to be like the old boss or whether they will adhere and actually behave at a higher standard of ethical behavior.
SYLVESTER: The minority is now the majority, and sometimes the view may change once you're on top.
One other campaign promise that Democrats may back away from is pay as you go. This is a pledge that Congress will not have any new spending unless it's offset by cuts elsewhere or tax increases. That might run against other Democratic campaign pledges, including a promise to expand Medicare prescription drug coverage. Kitty.
PILGRIM: It will be interesting to see how that plays out. Thanks very much, Lisa Sylvester.
Well, they haven't done anything in the last 6 years worthy of mention, so I guess the title's about right.
Dems did a lot of things. it was only because republicans controlled both houses that "nothing got done" by dems.
[link to www.huffingtonpost.com]
But that's ok. Paybacks are a bi@tch.
they had all the power, right?
Excuses, excuses, by Democrats. If being a minority party meant nothing, then they should have resigned. The Democrats supported the Bush administration for much of the last 6 years. The Iraq War was voted for by the Democrats when they had a majority in the Senate. Democrats have caved in to Bush everytime he and the neocons scared them with "weak on terror" name calling. How many fillabusters have we seen as Bush loaded the Supreme Court with cloaked extremists? Patriot Act...? I hope the Democrats have bigger plans in 2007 than raising the minimum wage and providing a tax credit to students. Will the Democrats repeal parts of the Patriot Act? outlaw torture? stop funding the war? stop warrentless wiretapping on US citizens? bring due process and habeaus corpus back to the legal framework? hold Bush accountable?
cloaked extremists.
You wanted more Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg clones?
...at least the Ruth Buzzi part. "Extremists," not so much.
How many Justices on the Court? Nine! How many appointed by Democrats? Two!
Definitely a liberal plot.
we gotta have some fun here...
was from West1's post.
"I hope the Democrats have bigger plans in 2007 than raising the minimum wage and providing a tax credit to students."
Me too. If they follow your suggestions, the Republicans will easily win the majority back in 2008. It won't even be close. I knew that the far left would expect the Dems to deliver big after the midterm elections. The Dems are in a bad situation. They have to try to please their kook fringe base, while at the same time appeal to moderates and independents. If they take your advice and pursue a far left agenda, they will get demolished in 2008. If they do the rational thing and pursue a sensible, centrist agenda, then they will probably keep the majority in 2008. The Democratic Party will be much better off if they stick to raising the minimum wage and cutting student loan rates.
Somehow I get the feeling your advice is not offered in good faith. Democrats would do well to ignore your ramblings and do what the people who elected them expect them to do. Conduct oversight, have hearings and issue subpoenas. The electorate spoke Nov. 7th and they delivered a clear message that they reject your right wing extremism and want Congress to do its job and reign in this abysmal failure of an administration.
"Conduct oversight, have hearings and issue subpoenas."
Uh, that wasn't the agenda that your friend Red King layed out. This is what he said.
"Will the Democrats repeal parts of the Patriot Act? outlaw torture? stop funding the war? stop warrentless wiretapping on US citizens? bring due process and habeaus corpus back to the legal framework? hold Bush accountable?"
Why did you pretend that he layed out a different agenda than the one I just mentioned? Could it be that you're a little bit embarrased by this extremist, far left agenda?
"If they take your advice and pursue a far left agenda"
so you would call outlawing torture, bringing back habeas corpus and due process, and all the other things he mentioned "far left agenda"? Interesting to hear you say that, that says more about you than it does about anything else, you know...
"so you would call outlawing torture, bringing back habeas corpus and due process, and all the other things he mentioned "far left agenda"?"
First of all, there are already laws against torture in this country, and we follow those laws. The fact that Red King is implying that we torture is a baseless and irresponsible accusation. What you and most on the far left want is for the U.S. to abolish in the most mild forms of coercive interrogation. I'm talking about stuff like sleep deprevation and changing room temperatures. We of course outlaw torture, which consists of extreme and irreversable physical pain.
Also, habeas corpus does not apply to terrorists. You have to be an AMERICAN CITIZEN to get habeas corpus protections. Terrorists do not have the right to endlessly challenge their detention through litigation in the courts. Also, ending the NSA program would greatly damage our national security. We need to be able to listen in to Al-Quada when they are calling someone in the U.S. You shouldn't have to stop listening to a phone call just because you don't have a warrant.
Also, cutting off funding for the war is a position that even most Democrats in Congress reject. Do you really think that we should cut off funding for our own troops? I don't see how you can claim to "support the troops" if you also want to cut off funding for them. And also, gutting the Patriot Act would obviously damage our national security. The Patriot Act is a vital tool for fighting the war on terror, and it's pretty scary that you want to get rid of a tool that is helping us fight the war on terror. So yes, the agenda that Red King advocated is a far left agenda! Even most Democrats in Congress don't support most of those ideas.
Quoted from your post:
"Conduct oversight, have hearings and issue subpoenas."
Uh, that wasn't the agenda that your friend Red King layed out. This is what he said.
You went on to criticize Redking at least three more times after that.
It was not Redking who made the statement, it was someone else. Why are you so blinded that you can't be rational and quote from the right poster.
If you can't be accurate, no one will ever believe you again.
Sorry about that. It was West1 who made those comments. RedKing was the first to post, and I just made an honest mistake. RedKing, if you are reading this, I apologize for my mistake. That was stupid of me.
Try responding to the content of what I said. You seemed to miss that part.
Whenever anyone disagrees with anything you have to say, you paint them as "far left", "weak", "anti-Christian".
Why bother replying to your content? Will you actually have a discussion? No, you'll just repeat what you've been saying for weeks now about us far left, weaklings who hate Christians.
I don't believe that I've called you weak or anti-Christian. For all I know you could be a Christian. God isn't a Republican or a Democrat. I did call you far left, because I don't want to do a dis-service to mainstream liberals who disagree with your views. I am willing to have a reasoned debate on these issues, as long as you don't start calling me a "wingnut" or a "fascist" or any of the other names that many on this website call me.
It's from your post in the Guiliani thread.
"Those that want to pull out of Iraq want to surrender to the enemy. That makes Giuliani tough and those that want to want to pull out of Iraq weak. It's pretty simple."
You were talking about us being anti-Christian last week,.
I was talking about politicians in Washington who advocate pulling out of Iraq merely for political gain. People like John Kerry and John Edwards supported the war when it was popular, but they turned against it when it became unpopular. They just do whatever is politically helpful to them. I never said that you were weak. I wasn't talking about anybody on this site.
Also, I never claimed that you were anti-Christian. My point was simply that Dobson gets most of his views from what the Boble says about certain issues. If you want to interpret the Bible in a different way, then go ahead. I just don't think that it's right for you to claim that Dobson hates gays when he's simply quoting from the Bible.
Meant Bible
it says a lot of thing that are flat out ridiculous.
all of your posts are filled with distortions, lies and just plain old BS talking points gleened off a far right hate pages.
Or are you just going to make baseless allegations without backing them up?
you claim tortue is ONLY 'irriversible pain' what BS. Please try being water-boarded or sleep depeived someday. They are not 'mild' in any sense. But hey you are such a coward you wont even sign up for the war you are willing to cheerlead. most likely if you did you would go AWOL just like dumbaya did.
at Gitmo. The guests have been asking for golf carts for a coupla years now, and we're still making them walk the course. C'mon, if we supply carts, we can lay off the caddies. But then, if we do that, the Cuban unemployment #'s will skyrocket...what to do?
We're in a box.
what is your point? have you ever been there or are you just regurgitating spew from Limballs or O'Lilley. In any case that single post just shows what you have between your ears.
the baseless allegations of "torture" at camps such as Gitmo are wearing thin. Even your OWN have been there to investigate, and found nothing.
Re: silliness, silliness begets silliness.
is one of the real prestige jobs in that silly Worker's Paradise, in addition to the jobs held by Cuban nationals inside the base itself.
So then during guided tours congressmen didnt SEE any torture and that is proof of WHAT? Are you kidding me? You are of course completely wrong, and have no idea what you are talking about. People like you HATE facts and reality. You so much prefer the delusional fantasies you have made up in your head. You consider reality to be a rude intrusion. Read it and weep.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
In another e-mail, dated Dec. 5, 2003, an agent complained about military tactics, including the alleged use of FBI impersonators. "These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and . . . have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee," the agent wrote. "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will be not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the 'FBI' interrogators."
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
Sean Baker has seizures an average of four times a week. 60 Minutes Wednesday went to see him a few weeks ago in a New York hospital "I was assaulted by these individuals," says Baker. "Pure and simple."
His unit was on duty at 2 a.m. on Jan. 24, 2003, when his squad leader got a message. "'Someone needs to go for training,'" says Baker. "And I looked around the room. I couldn’t believe that everyone had not stood up, and said, 'I'll go.' But I said, 'Right here, Sarg.'"
'We’re going to put you in a cell and extract you, have their IRF team come in and extract you. And what I’d like you to do is go ahead and strip your uniform off and put on this orange suit,'" says Baker, who was ordered to wear an orange jumpsuit, just like the ones worn by the detainees at Guantanamo.
"My face was down. And of course, they’re pushing it down against the steel floor, you know, my right temple, pushing it down against the floor," recalls Baker. "And someone’s holding me by the throat, using a pressure point on me and holding my throat. And I used the word, ‘red.’ At that point I, you know, I became afraid."
"And when I said the word ‘Red,’ he forced my head down against the steel floor and was sort of just grinding it into the floor. The individual then, when I picked up my head and said, ‘Red,’ slammed my head down against the floor," says Baker. "I was so afraid, I groaned out, ‘I’m a U.S. soldier.' And when I said that, he slammed my head again, one more time against the floor. And I groaned out one more time, I said, ‘I’m a U.S. soldier.’ And I heard them say, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa,' you know, like he wanted to, he was telling the other guy to stop."
Baker started having a seizure that morning and was whisked to the Naval Hospital at Guantanamo. "[He looked like] he'd had the crap beat out of him. He had a concussion. I mean, it was textbook," says Riley. "[His face} was blank. You know, a dead stare, like he was seeing you, but really looking through you."
Baker was airlifted to the Portsmouth Naval Medical Center in Virginia, where doctors determined he had suffered an injury to the right side of his brain. He was released after four days, and Baker says he requested to go back to Cuba.
Baker was finally taken off Guantanamo and sent to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he was put in a psychiatric ward. His diagnosis: traumatic brain injury. After 47 days, he was ordered to report to a medical hold unit at Fort Dix, N.J. But the seizures continued.
it's assumed that torture is policy.
I get it. When you run a war, everything will be transparent, and there will no screwups. Everybody will show love, trust and goodwill toward the enemy combatants, twenty-four seven.
now you admit it's not baseless, but it just doesn't happen often. so you were wrong in your initial contention?
Just smarmy condescension and really dumb posts. An AMERICAN soldier at Guantanamo got a BRAIN INJURY when POSING as an inmate. An FBI agent there described what he saw as torture techniques. If the things we do there to prisoners were done to YOU or YOUR SON would you be so cavilier? Compassion is not a bad thing nor is it a weakness. Doing what is right and condeming what is wrong is what citizens are supposed to do.
We're in a war and Geneva must be honored, declared war or not. After this war, there'll be more, because not a damn thing happens in this world if Uncle doesn't make it happen(Darfur?). Going forward, how do you propose we defend ourselves?
to "good points". maybe before you move on to how to defend ourselves, you need to get the facts on things, as you just admitted that maybe those allegations weren't so baseless after all.
step up to the plate and tell us the Progressive's Plan for Darfur. Y'all have power now. That also carries responsibility. What's your plan.
You won't say much, if anything.
really? who's still the decider? and apparently you concede the point about torture because you are doing your very best to move on to something else.
I would go after those who actually did attack us and those who DO threaten us. Anyone captured I would treat humanely. Show our humanity and strengthen the claim of our moral standing. I would do the things necessary to better our human intelligence. I would make clear to the Islamic world our fight is not with Islam but terrorism which I would attack without mercy. I would NOT attack nations that were not a threat I would NOT make things up to justify those invasions.
I think a good analogy is the way ranchers in Wyoming fought coyotes. For 50 years they tried to exterminate them but coyotes are one of the cleverest of predators. In the 60's a rancher who was far more successful than others in the state told his secret. He said he kept an eye on them but didnt shoot any he saw even when they were on his land. If any killed his livestock he hunted THEM and killed THEM. Mostly they ran his land and ate their natural prey, rabbits, mice, and such. When he did kill some others took their place and THEY kept out the ones who would prey on his stock. What I mean is that we identify those who ARE enemies and deal with them but that we dont multiply those enemies by simply defining them as enemies.
I think most Muslims are good people who even if they dont like our policies arent going to try to kill people. What we need is for the storeowner in Abu Dhabi to report to the local law enforcement when someone keeps buying a lot of glycerine that he has no need for. The man who thinks blowing up innocent people is against the Koran. The way to facilitate that happening is NOT to start a Holy War its NOT to make it SEEM like America is at war with Islam by invading countries for any reason but self defense. Its to let them know we respect them and their culture and will leave THEM alone if they leave US alone.
"Also, habeas corpus does not apply to terrorists. You have to be an AMERICAN CITIZEN to get habeas corpus protections. Terrorists do not have the right to endlessly challenge their detention through litigation in the courts."
So if an American citizen is "declared" a terrorist where does that leave them in regards to habeas corpus?
"So if an American citizen is "declared" a terrorist where does that leave them in regards to habeas corpus?"
They would have habeas corpus rights. The Supreme Court has already decided that.
The US has been torturing people since 2003. To say our government is not torturing people is a lie.
You need to provide some examples and sources before making a baseless allegation like that. I'm waiting.
Try doing a Google search on torture +Guantanamo +"Human Rights Watch". 283,000 results.
The American Psychiatric Association now refuses to allow members to participate with the Guantanamo facility because members are not allowed to participate in unethical treatment of prisoners.
Gee, I wonder why they would do that?
You know, over the last few years, everyone I've ever heard who says "Prove that we torture." has known that we do and is just trying to lie about it to cover it up and refuses to accept ANY of the mountains of evidence that proves it's happening. And many I have suspected of being Rove's internet PR agents. I think you're a paid neo-con plant, sent here to spread misinformation.
You don't go by the nick "Hubris" on IRC, do you?
Democrat Congressmen who have been down there have revealed that we're making the guests there use range balls instead of supplying new Titleists.
Somehow, the Neo-Cons ownership of all the media has kept that story from just blowing the lid off.
Your posts are always this stupid and pointless.
Congressman are given tours of the torture chambers themselves during interrogations...yeah, sure. Can you hide you bias against human rights any harder?
you guys defending the country, and the squeaky-clean ship you're gonna run.
If it doesn't turn out squeaky-clean, you'll say you got co-opted by the Neo-Cons, or sabotaged some other way.
Like you usually are. Habeus Corpus is NOT limited to citizens. NOTHING in the Bill of rights is limited to citizens the term used is PERSONS. You just LABELLING them terrorists or Bush doing so does not MAKE them terrorists. do you think thats all we have locked up? Terrorism is a crime. It is reprehensible to TREAT people like criminals without establishing they have committed a crime. You have no sense of fairness. The claim we do not torture is FALSE. An FBI agent at Guantanamo described what he saw as torture techniques. Sleep deprivation is NOT mild it is an insidious torture that can cause psychosis and death. Read what Solzenitskin says about it. Also you do NOT get to define torture that is already done in the Convention Against torture Act and it in NO WAY corresponds to your delusional description.
>>>"[Democrats] have to try to please their kook fringe base..."<<<
Like your fellow loser Republicans did (see Schaivo, Terri-among others), before losing the House and Senate. That strategy turned out well for them.
Your definitions for 'far left agenda' are unknown. If by that you mean, push for a withdrawal from Iraq and possibly investigate wrong-doing by this Republican bunch... versus just sitting on their hands, watching the world burn while continuing to be chumps for Bush, etc? Yeah, that's just wacko! The Dems were elected, in part, because people are fed up with this war in Iraq.
One of the reasons the Democrats are in a bad place is because of the slanted media (again shown in this piece). Can't win for losing. Centrist? I'm not sure you even know what that means.
"One of the reasons the Democrats are in a bad place is because of the slanted media"
That's insane. Even most mainstream liberals acknowledge that the media has a liberal bias. Saying that the media has a conservative bias is kind of like saying that Stalin was a mainstream centrist leader. It's absolutely ridiculous.
the stinky place you pulled it all from. Try reality and truth someday
MOST mainstream liberals acknowledge that the media has a liberal bias? MOST? Can you name ANY?
I got my information from a place called The Center for Media and Public Affairs. They conducted a poll somewhere around the year 2003 that dealt with political bias. I wrote the results down, because I was writing a paper for a class. I'm not sure if you can still find it in the archives or not. But the results are as follows: Of those surveyed, 43% described the news media's perspective on politics as liberal, 33% say it as moderate, and 19% thought that it was conservative. Also, 41% of liberals polled saw the media as liberal, compared to only 22% who found the media to be conservative.
can you detect that, even if this is a real survey, 41% is not "most" ?
Or am I spinning the math?
and he was a lifelong Liberal anchorman, was Howard K. Smith.
The difference between liberal and conservative journalists is that liberal journalists see themselves a journalists first and liberals second and conservatives see themselves as conservatives first. I have read a very famous media institutional anlysis and its conclusion is one I agree with. The real dichotomy in the media is NOT liberal/conservative. The bias is more business, which is natural since media is paid for by advertising and elite opinion. This will manifest usually as socially liberal and economically, which also means foriegn policy, conservative.
"Liberal media bias" may have been true (Mr. Truth Detector) at one point in the past. But, it certainly isn't now. Nor has it been for some time. The kid gloves that Bush Co. are handled with in comparison to Bill, Hillary, and Chelsae Clinton... no comparison whatsoever. Your assertion my ring 'true' in your world... not in reality, my friend.
YOU are truely delusional
Democrats have a whole basket full of excuses when you point out that they've been helping Bush and the neo-cons every step of the way. Looks like they got their own flavor of Kool-Aid.
So what political party are you a part of? The Communist party?
I don't mean that to be insulting or anything, but I was just wondering if there are any political parties in the U.S. that are farther to the left than the Democratic Party.
I'm one of them anti-racism, anti-war, anti-torture, anti-fascist, pro-peace, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-social justice liberals. A devoted follower of Gandalf, a loyal disciple of Garibaldi, one who walks in the vision of Jesus and William Penn, one who revels in the name of secular progressive humanism and all the compassion and love that it entails. I am the elf to your orc.
you forgot pro-environment.
ism.
Jesus said, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...", which is not the same as the Gospel According to Robin Hood and the Progressive Merrymen.
The Gospel according to Ebeneezer Scrooge and the conservative warmongers
The commons, the commonwealth, the common good is America's greatest example of her mercy and compassion. Not only do we liberals believe in personal responsibility we believe in mutual responsibility. Like a family we are beholden to one another to protect one another and aid on another.
While conservatives may believe that the greatest indication of greatness takes the form of some monolithic institution of wealth we liberals believe greatness is derived from people helping people.
I meant to write aid ONE another.
never gets there. The British crucified their rich--tell me what it got them. Relative poverty for all.
Pontificating that compassion is the exclusive province of Liberals is laughable. Take charitable contributions by wealthy individuals and businesses out of the equation, not to mention their personal involvement in such causes as well as on a person-to-person basis, and the COMPASSION total won't be half what it is now.
You just can't see the politics of envy for what it is, and how you are being used by its purveyors.
The politics of envy for what it is. Those who use the democtatic process to better the lives of ALL Americans are not working out of envy. I HAVE a good life. I make a very good living, I have health care, I can send my daughter to a good school, I want my neighbor to have those same things. No possible definition of envy can apply to that. Those who obsessively kiss wealthy butt and say if we just give everything to those already rich, we will get some crumbs, THEY are being envious. Its like my two friends in high school. Now the QB of the football team was an arrogant jerk who treated everyone like dirt. One of my friends called him on being a jerk but the other kept making excuses for him. He is under a lot of pressure, his friends make him act that way. We all know which of those two was envious.
do you realize that some people think YOU'RE way too wealthy, and your assets should be redistributed? Are they wrong?
They have less than you--shouldn't they have as much?
Makes you sound defensive.
You might be assuming that I think conservatives are without compassion or lack generosity. You might be assuming that I think liberals are the only compassionate or generous people. Didn't say that, that's on you my friend.
I Just pointed out general distinctions of our respective philosophies.
according to roundhouse> While conservatives may believe that the greatest indication of greatness takes the form of some monolithic institution of wealth we liberals believe greatness is derived from people helping people.
Oh, really? Then why do conservatives consistently give more of their hard-earned money to charity?
Prove to me that conservatives are so much more generous. Where are the studies?
"Then why do conservatives consistently give more of their hard-earned money to charity?"-Gittinintoodeep
Aren't conservatives the boot strap guys? Aren't they the 'teach a man to fish,' crowd?
Charity? Isn't that too much like dependecy inducing wellfare?
Here you go:
"When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
Here's the article: [link to www.beliefnet.com]
"Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income." -Frank Brieaddy, beliefnet.com
What about religious liberals versus secular conservatives?
"To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information."-Frank Brieaddy, beliefnet.com
That is a very interesting statement. If somone told you that you cut out qualifying information in order to make a forceful point, would you take that as a tribute to your integrity?
Not saying that this Brooks guy is not forthright but I do question his objectivity. I would prefer a study cited instead of a book by a partial author.
I understand your antipathy toward the information. If the roles were reversed, I'd probably be a little miffed too. I'd like to think I'd be a little more open-minded and maybe more introspective instead of quickly raising doubts about the author's objectivity, though. If I buy the book, I'll cite the author's studies for you.
any chance at it not being biased to what the author wants it to 'prove'
just skeptical.
I would be just as skeptical if some secular humanist were telling me that secular humanists were say, I don't know, more apt to have higher IQ's than born again Christians. Do you see the problem with the framing of the argument?
Brooks could have just as easily focused on the philanthropic efforts of Christians versus non-Christians. Instead he included the qualifiers religious conservatives and secular liberals as if to preclude the possibility of any other permutations of religio-political identities.
I thank you for your civility even though I was sniping.
Merry Christmas and peace on earth.
You have a good point. My "gut" tells me religious people who define themselves as "liberal" would be just as likely to give to charity as religious "conservatives". I'd guess that those who are secular are less likely to give but I don't know. I may go by the bookstore and take a look through the book. If I buy it, I'll let you know. Merry Christmas to you, too.
I too will give the book a look except I'll be searching for it in the local public library.
both for the words he put in 'liberals' mouths and his conclusion? Just the fact he wrote a book does not constitute fact or proof.
Socialism put a man on the moon and built the schools that taught you and I to read. I see your bias against the working class is showing. Is there anything about compassion you don't hate?
"How many fillabusters have we seen as Bush loaded the Supreme Court with cloaked extremists?"
John Roberts is not extreme in the least bit. He's as mainstream as they come. They call him a judicial minimalist, because he's someone who emphasizes precedent and tries to decide cases as narrowly as possible. He's definetely not as conservative as Scalia or Thomas. You lose all of your credibility when you claim that well a well respected judge like John Roberts is a "cloaked extremist."
Roberts is a czarist who believes in the absolute power of the presidency. He's a monarchist into autocracy and has no business being put in charge of maintaining the balance of powers between the Federal branches. You can't uphold the Constitution while kissing King George III's arse.
is one phrase that describes Utopians to a "T".
Kennedy, Clinton, Roosevelt, etc. could do no wrong.
No content
on this page.
at 853 am in direct reply to you, which you called "good points". just another troll who will shortly disappear only to reregister under a new name.
The substance in my content is commensurate to the post I am responding to. Cough UP some substance and you will see some out of me. Your silly namecalling, mischaracterizations, and taunting dont call for a substantial reply. Who in their right mind would waste time composing a substantial reply to what amounts to Nyaah, Nyaaaah
an objective look will show you, that on average, you have just described yourself and the other name-calling, vitriolic posters of like mind.
Not saying you have no content. I read all your posts, and I generally appreciate your information. But -- nobody can outnasty or outvitriol you. You da man, on that. I won't even try.
Like the market fundamentalists who worship the irreproachable invisible hand of unrestricted capitalism.
and where does it exist? I assume you mean in a place with no laws.
And where would that be? Try business yourself sometime, then get back to me on whether there are no restrictions.
Get real.
untethered by regulations? Do you not believe that the market will ultimately yield the best possible results for all if left alone?
I run a small business selling mail-order. I treat my customers well and understand their economic situation, hence I sell below MSRP and don't try to gouge them on shipping. I have a 99% customer satisfaction rating.
My day job is for another mail-order firm that only cares about profit, about gouging as much as possible. The company is whining that sales are slumping and they're losing money due to bad business practices, mainly because they don't care at all about the customer until he or she shows up angry in the complaint department. They can't keep workers in the warehouse because the pay is horrible and the pressure intense. Management is more interested in their own salaries and titles than actually running a good firm. They have a customer satisfaction rate of about 75%.
Compassion and understanding makes for the better businessman. The numbers prove it. Love will turn a business into a work of art, greed turns it into a monstrosity.
those that can't compete with you will bite the dust, as they should and do. Some do well, others don't. Some get lazy and forget why they made it in the first place, then get eclipsed by someone like yourself.
My hat is off to you. Good sailing in the New Year.
I am SICK AND TIRED of the bought and paid for media! Their utter refusal to see that Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart were harbingers of things to come is unreal! The only answer so seems to be to send them out to the "provinces" (Lou's Town Halls, and Matthews College), to influence people that way. It's sickening. The word Sanctimonious could not do it justice. They HATE that the PEOPLE are on to them!
the ol' geezers on the Supreme Court, or a comedian who was middle aged when she was on Laugh-In, "Extreme", it may be time to start shopping for nursing homes.
used on the previous page, in reference to Bush's appointees.
Sorry for the unclear post. I was attempting to point out that Ruth Ginzberg did not come down the middle road on her way to the Court.
as council for the ACLU before she was appointed the the S.C?
PANIC AND RUN IN CIRCLES!!!!
LOL that is so pathetic, but sadly that does frighten some
Zero,
If she and the subversives at the ACLU supported the Constitution, I'd have no problem with them but they don't. From the ACLU: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."- Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU
But that's off topic. You can't call them "do nothing Dems". They haven't even taken the reins yet. We'll see in 2007.
So I'mDuped says "the subversives at the ACLU" don't support the Constitution? That's hilarious!
And what is the proof of this knee-slapper contention? A quote from one of the 1920 founders (not "the" founder) of the group - who hadn't lead the group since 1949 and has been dead for 25 years.
Please, stop! You're killing me!
Of course, Baldwin also said "[s]o long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy." But that's not as ideologically useful, is it, Duped?
a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. The founders were repulsed at the idea of creating a democracy.
As for the ACLU, they've done more to undermine the foundations of America than any other group I know of.
Voting makes this a democracy. I know you Republicans hate the word, but then supporting an autocratic presidency is hardly republican and since almost all Republicans think Democrats are automatically liberals, I don't put much value in your vocabulary skills.
Yurstoopid Strikes out again. The ACLU says their ONLY client is the Bill of Rights. They consistantly support individual rights and freedom. Two concepts Yurstoopid apparantly hates
Not a Libertarian anywhere in their ranks. Wouldn't be tolerated.
ACLU--phony agenda. They and their lapdogs hate it when Baldwin is quoted.
Bob Barr has been working with the ACLU for years and recently LEFT the GOP and joined the libertarian PARTY. They are civil libertarians, another no content post. Just a baseless assertion without a hint of logic or insight. Worthless really. Phoney poster, no value whatsoever.
get the time of day from you, if I hadn't suggested that. Give me a list of things you agree with Bob Barr on.
Next you'll tell us that Baldwin was in step with today's Libertarian Party.
Well, Duh-raine, I surely disagree with Bob Barr on a lot of things, however, he, I, and the ACLU are all -
- strong proponents of freedom of speech; - strong advocates of privacy rights; and - deeply concerned about the growth of government databases containing large amounts of personal information about an ever-greater number of people.
I'm sure there are more along that line, but those are the ones that came quickly to mind.
Big Government Libertarians, or some nonsensical term. They are blatantly hypocritical, backing bureaucracy and a forced march on any number of issues.
For starters, try their position on school choice.
We're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic.
Oh! Oh! I am crushed by the weight of your rhetorical brilliance! Citing the technical difference between a democracy and a republic utterly demolishes any argument I made! Oh the humanity! How shall I ever carry on?
Well, maybe this way:
the ACLU [has] done more to undermine the foundations of America than any other group I know
Which foundations are you talking about? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Protection against self-incrimination? Protection against secret government tribunals? Protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" (such as illegal wiretaps)? In short, the Bill of Rights? Upholding the Constitution is undermining the foundations of America? Just what kind of America do you want to live in?
One of the more recent victories for a state ACLU came in Louisiana where the group successfully stopped the city of Natchitoches from preventing a man from picketing outside a Wal-Mart with a sign reading "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Lifestyles And Marriage. Don’t Shop There."
I guess supporting freedom of assembly and of religious expression are two more ways the ACLU is undermining America.
to Baldwin, but you beat me to it. Thanks.
Alas, Baldwin will be defended here, ad nauseum.
who also fought for our rights? Gosh, why am I not surprised! LOL
Now a days the media can't wait for news ... they need to make stuff up or prognosticate ... c'mon, if the dems actually do nothing, report it then, not before ... they are not even in power yet.
If we don't "win" in Iraq by Easter, it'll be spun as the DemocRATS fault...
And another thing...
minimum wage and providing a tax credit to students."
Why, the gall . . . doing things that actually BENEFIT THE POPULACE! How dare they! Next thing, they'll actually SERIOUSLY consider comprehensive health care! Or properly securing our ports and borders!!
How RADICAL, FRINGE, AND EXTREMIST!!
But what does that matter when they support the committing and funding of war crimes and the continuation of torture? What's raising minimum wages to still-poverty levels when US troops are killing and dying in the name of corporate imperialism? What's a few bucks for college matter when we still hold hundreds at Guantanamo without trial and the CIA is still roaming the world, flying prisoners from torture chamber to torture chamber?
I always say it's the little things, the little nagging things that get me.
The less controversial stuff, raising the minimum wage.... - Sylvester
If that's so damned uncontroversial - and it is, with polls reporting as much as 86% of the public in favor and even some of our conservative friends and trolls here regarding it as a "well, of course" - why the hell hasn't it already happened and why was that unworthy of mention?
As the saying goes, some questions need only be asked.
if you were me, would you be looking forward to telling your part-time workers that their jobs aren't worth 7-whatever per hour PLUS the payroll taxes of 30-plus %, and I'll have to lay them off?
So many of you on this site are ready to be "compassionate" as long as you don't have to deal with economic reality.
How typical: The facts are against you, so change the subject.
The question was, why, if a minimum-wage hike is as uncontroversial as Sylvester (and even our conservatives here) agree it is, it hasn't already been done?
Your, uh, "response" said absolutely nothing about that. A total non sequitur.
But I 'll deal with it anyway:
- There is no current evidence that raising the minimum wage has any significant effect on employment. The studies that did claim that hiking the minimum wage costs jobs, often based on idealized economic models, were done 20-30 years ago and are contradicted by more recent data.
- The figure of "30-plus %" for "payroll taxes" is utterly meaningless. The employer's Social Security contribution is 6.2% of wages; that for Medicare, 1.45%; a total of 7.65%. I expect you got the 30% from the common back-of-the-napkin method of figuring net pay by taking 70% of gross pay - but that 30% includes not only your contribution to Social Security and Medicare, but also withholding taxes, which are taken from your pay and are not a cost to the employer.
So many of you on this site are ready to be "compassionate" as long as you don't have to deal with economic reality.
Part of that "economic reality" is that the federal minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest level in 50 years and means a gross yearly income of $10,500 for a full-time worker, which is barely poverty level for a single person and nowhere near enough for a family. And before you go off on a tear about minimum-wage workers being "teenagers," it's estimated that 80% of workers who would be affected by a hike are 21 or older.)
I guess that's an economic reality that doesn't bother you - provided you don't have to deal with it. But then again, you seem to find being compassionate something to sneer are, so I shouldn't be surprised.
you'd be figuring your cost of Worker's Comp as part of payroll tax. 30% would be low in some industries.
There, you learned something from the front lines of the issue instead of the professional spin boneheads you usually get your info from.
LOL keep on with the stupid stuff, you make us laugh :)
you are clueless on what running a business is, and the realities of minimum wage hikes and how they can eliminate jobs.
But I expected as much. Start a business sometime. You'll get another post-graduate degree.
you'd be figuring your cost of Worker's Comp as part of payroll tax.
Calling workers' comp a "tax" strikes me as quite odd. Be that as it may, if you're all that business-wise as you like to come on, you would surely know that payroll is only one factor in determining premiums. In fact, depending on the number of employees affected, raising the minimum wage might not raise premiums at all for a given employer. (There is also the side issue that workers' comp also serves to protect employers by shielding them from some lawsuits that could otherwise arise from work-related injuries.)
So the attempted implication that raising the minimum wage would increase per-worker cost by an additional 30% beyond the increase is still bogus.
And that still leaves all the other issues you failed to address such as the fact that there is no demonstrated overall effect on employment or that the real minimum wage is at its lowest point in 50 years - and keeps sinking lower the longer we fail to act. Interesting you're so concerned with the tiny handful of employers for who, supposedly, an increase would spell economic disaster and utterly dismissive of the millions of workers struggling day by day to feed themselves and their families on what are literally poverty-level wages.
Suure, Democrats will do nothing with their congressional powers. They're not like Bush, hero of the world and man of action. Who took action when it surfaced that Iraq had no WMD? Euhm, right,..no one. And who took action when Iraq spiraled into civil war? Euhm, right...no one. And who took action when deficits were breaking records? Euhm, right...no one. And who took action when poverty was rising all over the US? Euhm, right,...no one. And who took action when mostly Saudi's flew planes into the WTC on 9/11? Who invaded Saudi Arabia? Who took down the terrorists of the world? Right,...no one.
I actually watched this last night, and my first thought was " this will be on MMFA tomorrow for certain" and I was right, and rightfully so. I had two HUGE problems with this story, the first being that the Democrats haven't even been in control of the congress for 1 day and they're already being labeled? And then they talk to 3 different conservatives and get their opinions on the Dems? GIVE ME A BREAK! I was particularly disappointed because I usually enjoy Dobbs' show, and find him to be usually informative, and he does not often end up on here. I've also heard him on Al Franken's show, Bill Maher, and Jon Stewart and in none of those interviews does he come across as partisan and on Franken's show he actually gave great praise to Clinton. I am going to at least send an email on this, and was planning to last night.
of middle-class victimhood. We have screwed ourselves, thank you, and we deserve credit for it. The list is too long to even begin here, and no secret to anybody.
but, remember, Lou's hawking his latest book, so he's got to keep up the fervor to sell copies, ya know. But, seriously, we "the people" keep re-electing incumbents who do nothing more than consilidate their power, line their pockets, and cater to their wealthy donors. Unfortunately, this is rampant on both sides, but, IMO, much worse on the GOP side. The GOP does NOTHING for the middle or lower class at all. At least the Dems do some good for those who aren't already incredibly wealthy when given the opportunity. I'm sorry, if you've got billions in the bank, you really don't need a tax cut. You just don't. It's not about living comfortably or having whatever you want - these people already have more than any human being could ever, need, use, consume, whatever. At that point it's simply about power and control - any need was fulfilled long, long ago. The rest of us are just working our butts off to have our slice of the pie, however small it may be.
doesn't need his tax cut, agreed. Who needs his tax cut is the general economy, which is where his tax cut goes (into the capital markets, which drive the economy). That freed-up money mainlines into the economy, instead of slowing to a snail's pace in the maze of government.
Billionaires aren't buying more toys with that money--they already have all the toys they can use. That money enters the capital markets. In the case that they do indulge themselves more, that's a contribution to the economy also.
Or are they spending that tax cut on new industries in India and China? middle class tax cuts get spent on consumer goods. Why would it make sense for the vast majority of Americans to forgo the direct benifits of tax dollars on the HOPE of INDIRECT benifits that MAY come someday IF it doesnt go overseas? Tax cuts dont pay for themselves. They represent lost revenue.The rich have had enough tax cuts. 12 years of them Raygun/Bush and Clinton raised taxes on the rich and the economy had the longest peacetime expansion in HISTORY.
for the reason you cite as well as others, and it always will since it is pure hookum to fool the tiny-brained 30%'ers
when you pour tax revenue down the bureaucracy sinkhole, thinking it will actually make its way through that plumber's nightmare to somebody other than public employees.
Economies are not run by capital, they are run by DEMAND. You can have all the capital in the world, but if noone wants to buy your product, you don't make a cent. When the mass of the population have no buying power, then products do not move off the shelves. Most consumers are working class, they buy far more clothing, housing, feul, food, etc than a handful of rich folk. When the working class cannot purchase, the economy slumps. It's all a question of numbers. I know these little economic facts aren't taught in the We Love The Rich handbooks, but it is true. No demand, no economy. It's that simple.
These are snark- free questions, D. What do you mean, "We have screwed ourselves,...?"
Middle-class victimhood? Do you mean economic populism?
the perfect example would be Social Security.
Awaiting the onslaught of apologists for Ponzi.
Before SS half of all elderly people lived in poverty that figure is now about 10%. Admit it you have a pin-up poster of Ebeneezer Scrooge in your bedroom dont you?
of our descendants holding the bag, with nothing in it, and wondering why previous generations couldn't do the math.
If SS is around at all a few years from now, it won't have benefits anything like it has now, but our kids will be paying a higher rate than we pay now.
Yet another public trust raided for the sake of paying for the American imperial experiment that is the Iraq occupation.
I try to see rightwing reasoning on these issues. So help me understand your rightwing alternatives. What are they and why are they superior?
about just a small, optional portion of a person's SS dollars made determinable by himself, when it's been so maligned and smeared? The detractors don't want people to find out how much better off they would be with even a small portion of SS not being part of the chain letter.
"Risky" they scream. OK--how about invested only in gov't bonds? Way better than the chain letter.
"The system will go broke" they scream. Earth to taxpayer: It WILL be broke if we don't do something, and kidding everybody is not the right thing to do.
I don't know, 'cause I don't watch the news. So inane.
There it is - the "liberal media" at it again. At this moment, it is not important whether the Democrats pass an increase in the minimum wage - or anything else. The point is that CNN has planted the idea of a do-nothing Democratic Congress - even before they meet. Language is the key, not just the reality of action. Read George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and his follow-up Thinking Points to see how the conservative think tanks bombard the media with language that shapes our thinking. That Dobbs piece is a whole lot of blather against Democrats, not about what they have done, but speculation painting them in negative terms. Speak up!
before they're sworn in. By the end of January that'll seem like a honeymoon as the media labels them "horrible, disappointing failures."
The actual do nothing Republican congress worked just 103 days this year. Compare that to the "do nothing congress of 1938" which worked 110 days.
b@$t@rds, I agree fully.
Dobbs has the right idea.
In fact, all of you out there who have made your New Year's resolutions? Just WHAT have you done to keep any of them? You said you were going to give up junk food in 2007. Admit it: you haven't done it, have you? Well, you're a "Do-Nothing".
Excellent analogy.
Is to expose the snakepit that is the Bush administration. The lies told to get us into Iraq should be the number one issue. There are no good options in that cesspool, so wringing our hands about "what to do next" is pointless. If we pull out, more death and distruction will follow; if we stay, more death and distruction will follow, with us at it's center. WE WERE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER! Accept the fact that we're screwed, and make those who screwed us pay for it! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and maybe Powell should be brought up on charges for war crimes and war profiteering.
If the Democrats do nothing but that, they will be heroes of the Republic.
No nerzog I'm expecting/hoping for MORE from the Dems.
Sure, get to the bottom of the mess & expose the lies & prosecute the guilty BUT please don't forget about the soldiers fighting that unjust war. Bringing as many of them home in ONE piece instead of body bags SHOULD be a TOP priority.
Leaving Vietnam wasn't done without complications, NOR will leaving Iraq be bloodless. But leave we must OR face the [unacceptable IMO] commitment to at least another decade there. And accept that thousands more will be killed or wounded. I don't want that, I'm sure you don't either.
Congress MUST also tackle Domestic issues as well.
We can't all be left hanging just because Bush f#cked up.
The Democrats were voted in to make CHANGES.
Since we're screwed either way, I vote for pulling out and using air power to keep the conflict from spilling over into neighboring countries. I don't think a pullout is in the cards, though. The Bushkevics and their puppets in the press have browbeaten the Democratic leadership into believing that pulling out is "cowardly", so the Dems are likely to be a little skiddish about proposing it. I could be wrong, however; there may be a few real statesmen left...somewhere.
and a lot for them to undo. Bush and his rubberstamp congress have trashed our country on innumerable fronts... the economy, the environment, foreign policy, education. They even underfunded the fricken SEC, of all things. They wouldn't even bestir themselves to make sure that shareholders didn't get ripped off.
I have no idea what the Democrats will be able to do first, or what vetos they can override. When everything's a top priority, nothing's a top priority. I certainly don't mind them tackling some of the easier stuff while Bush's approval ratings drop and their ability to override his vetos improves.
there's been more prosecution, and successful prosecution, of white-collar crime under Bush's watch than any other administration.
The biggest white-collar criminals are as yet untouched...Bush and his whole putrid administration. I think a little digging might show where that 9 billion dollars went that disappeared in Iraq; I suspect that most of it found it's way into the pockets of Bush's contractor buddies.
re: SEC funding. Underfunded or not, SEC et al has successfully prosecuted a host of Wall Street scams.
... not the Media.
The MEDIA did their damnedest to follow the ROVE talking points for the past six years. All the NeoCons' dreams and all the Plutocratic Corporate Leaders greatest plans were pursued and realized, meanwhile the MEDIA was constantly depicting the Dems as "the problem" ... always.
DESPITE the narratives religiously followed in nearly every media source available ... the American People recognized rampant corruption and incompetence coming from the Republicans, while the Right had absolute control!
NOTHING was being done to benefit average Americans, while gargantuan efforts were being made to steal resources from other countries while enriching Bush's friends. And the Congress -- the Republican DO NOTHING Congress, set to go down in history as the WORST along with Bush as the WORST president -- did NOTHING to perform oversight, NOTHING to pass programs of benefit to the American People, and only concerned themselves with policies which REMOVED any governmental (FAIR!) impediments to rampant profit taking and amassing wealth in ever fewer hands. EVERY SINGLE GOP policy had the effect of HARMING Americans while ENRICHING the select elite few. Without exception.
The Media FAILED. The Media was supposed to install and maintain a PERMANENT MAJORITY for the Republicans. They did everything they could, but the American Heros were Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, and internet sites like Media Matters. The few voices of REASON were heard by the American people, and overcame the overwhelming propaganda the Rightwing hoped would seal their deal of controlling America far into the future.
If you listened to the "mainstream media", you would never have guessed Iraq was going badly. You would never have heard that all the "growth" in this nation acrued to only a few people. You would have believed the economy was doing "great". You would have thought that Democrats were all radical, fringe extremists and traitors. You would have believed that Bush was a decisive and strong leader. THIS is the narrative that we Americans have been told by the Mainstream Media over the past six years. Don't worry, go shopping. Pay no attention to those body bags coming back from Iraq. Cheney tells the truth, pay no attention to his Halliburton ownership. Hillary is unelectable. Etc, etc, etc. Rightwing narratives all, and all rank propaganda. And the Mainstream Rightwing Media did their bit: they parroted ALL these points, day after day.
So now the narrative is that it's a DEMOCRAT "Do Nothing" Congress ... before they have even assembled with their majority powers. Wonderful. The narrative has already been written and broadcast. And just like the MEDIA's near unanimous backing for Bush and his pursuit of WMDs, when the narrative turns out to be totally BOGUS ... and when the Dems start investigating and jailing GOP crooks, and when the Dems start passing laws that undo Bush's NeoCon Plutocratic rule, the narrative will simply change, without explanation or apology. Just like the WMDs, their previous lies will simply be forgotten.
But not by the American People.
Yeah, them Democrats are gonna investigate and impeac...oh, wait, Nancy Pelosi said they won't do that.
The Dems are gonna end the wa...oh, wait, the new Dem Senate majority leader says we need more troops in Iraq.
Six years in minority and they voted FOR everything Bush has asked for. Voted FOR the war crimes, to fund the torture chambers, to keep the war going, to promote Gonzales and Roberts and Rice. The Dems sure didn't use their minority power against Bush, did they?
When will some of you stop projecting all these fantasies of liberalism onto an obviously corrupt and criminal party and see them for what they truly are, for what they actually DO?
They have an "obvious" liberal bias so logically, they trash the party they're ideologically affiliated with - before they're in power, even.
Those ingenious Liberal SOBs. Now wonder we've had 12 years of Republican Congressional rule - six of those under a Republican President.
will trash their own, does not mean they don't have a Liberal bias. It's the nature of the business, they're all afraid of their jobs, and job security is defined as raising hell in general.
Dorraine,
I hope you have a great Christmas. I guess my quoting Baldwin was too much for the folks at MMFA so they banned me. So much for the idea of MMFA promoting open dialogue. I looked at their "policies" and as far as I can tell, I never violated anything. The only person who consistantly violates them seems to be Solon and he's been here forever. Go figure. Once again, have a very merry CHRISTmas! I'll be banned immediately for that...
off topic and inflamatory. Classic troll post. You obviously are not a new poster or how would you know how long I have been here. Been banned before?
You (at least I think it was you) posted something from another poster that was a few years old so you must have been here at least that long.
from the MMFA policy: DO respect others' opinions. We expect posters from all parts of the political spectrum here. Please express your opinion without insulting other posters. DON'T write an otherwise thoughtful post and then close it with insults or profanity. Your post will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned.
Take a look at your posts and tell me if you're not routinely violating "the policy". Your posts and those of many others here are filled with insults and disrespect for others. That's not a problem for the "thought police" at MMFA but post something they disagree with (without violating their "policy") and you're gone.
I guess they'll kick me outa here too, pretty soon.
Dunno why. We need love too, don't we? Don't understand the viciousness.
You deserve love. Thank you for coming here and dustin' it up cowboy!
Merry Christmas, D.
right back atcha.
Matter of fact, Merry Christmas to all on this site. You're all thought-provoking and good Americans.
The media has not been pushing MY agenda for the last twenty years. The media is NOT liberal that is a rightwing talking point without merit.
I think the media is just irresponsible in general, and the only bigger whores is probably the House and Senate themselves. Merry Christmas to you anyway, Solon