Those black folks who are released after 25+ years in prison because they are somewhat belatedly found innocent (and who got there through sheer negligence/racism) never get any government compensation either. why should those kids get anything?
Did it ever occur to you that we should have both? Compensation for innocent men released after a couple decades in prison AND kids who were wrongly sent to juvi for a few months?
The only reason to bring back the fairness doctrine is to get rid of conservative talk radio.
As is usually the case, that wingnut talking point has no basis in reality. A return of the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have any effect on Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Liddy et all. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
What it would do, is force the stations that carry those asshats to balance them out with contrary views. But to get someone as far to the left as these guys are to the right, you'd have to give talk shows to Raul Castro and Kim Jung Il.
I most certainly consider her to be a liberal Democrat.
I'm not surprised, since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Feinstien is "liberal" in two areas: the environment and women's issues. Other than that, she's your standard issue big business warmongering Republican with her head up Israel's ass.
Because of the underlying philosophies. Both left-R's and left-D's have the notion that government is god and must solve everything. The R's do it by twiddling with business, the D's do it by twiddling with the little people. The R's appeal to traditional religions. The D's appeal to anti-religion religions. The end result is the same: more government, less freedom.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you huffed paint on a regular basis and had little to no contact with reality.
Problem: the source in the video is John Boehner, and like all House Republicans, he's generally full of shit. And watching Republicans whine about Democrats shoving legislation through without time for review is like Karl Rove whining that Rahm Emanuel is too partisan - the pot is calling the kettle black.
Royalties. If an employee comes up with a product that makes (or saves) a bunch of money for your firm, give them a few percentage points of the resulting profits.
And what the hell does failing have to do with accountability? So Bernie Madoff would just be broke instead of broke and going to jail? How bout that peanut factory that sent out food that they knew to be contaminated? Or that coal slurry that is poisoning Kentucky?
How bout this: your link doesn't back up your assertion.
My math may be off, but I believe that 1982 occurred between now and the 1930's. According to Bloomberg, that recession was worse than this recession.
Depends on how you look at the data. This recession is particularly bad on the number of jobs lost. And with our previous economic downturns, we didn't have to grapple with a recession AND a $10 trillion national debt that's 2/3's the size of our GDP.
Only drama-queen democrats are insisting that this is the worst recession we've had since the 30's.
Translation: all your talking points got shot down, so you're going to ignore the facts, your own quotes, and will just prattle on with your lame false equivalencies. Yawn.
You could allocate money for FDR's "ditches to nowhere" from the 30s and that would employ people.
You mean the program that put hundreds of thousands back to work in a matter of weeks? That helped alleviate the Dust Bowl and started infrastructure projects that we use to this day? What about them?
But the point in investing in infrastructure for stimulus is to get a multiplicative effect for every dollar spent in the economy. You don't get that with social programs so much.
Yeah, actually, you do. Two of the most effective forms of economic stimulus are food stamps and unemployment benefits. Sadly for you, reality's well known liberal bias strikes again.
It wasn't cut
School construction funding was cut. Then it was put back in. Then they argued about the funding. Right now it looks like there will be some funds in there, but it went back and forth for a while.
Democrats and their liberal policies are 100% to blame for this.
And of all the "liberal policies" that the Democrats managed to push past Bush in the last two years, which ones are specifically responsible for our current crisis?
Notice that when they blame Bush and company they're never specific
Just because you don't bother to pay attention doesn't mean they aren't specific.
Ah, yes, gun control. I have fond memories of gun nuts stating how they couldn't vote for Kerry because he supported restrictions on firearms. So they voted for Bush in droves, who said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban. And of all the candidates running for president last year, the one who had pushed the hardest for gun control was Rudy Giuliani. So, naturally, he had a nice chummy meeting with the NRA.
I wonder if there would still be a run on gun stores if Rudy had won the Republican Party and the general election. Well, not really wonder, as we all know IOKIYAR.
But when Democrats are in power and are demonstrably corrupt to the bone, their excuse is that "oh everyone is corrupt, that's just how our government is, live with it."
Don't think no one noticed how you glossed over the little bit about the centralization of power in the leadership.
Batshit irrelevant to the idea of supposed Democratic group think. Which you know, was the point of my objection. And in you Dingle quote he's not even bitching about something Pelosi did as speaker, but $10,000 she donated to his primary opponent. Yawn.
I missed this before. Tell me, what does Harry Reid have to do with the House of Representatives?
I must have missed the part where I said he did. Since you don't even remember what you quoted (if you actually paid any attention to it the first time), here it is again:
More troublesome for Mr. Dingell has been the long-term trend toward ideological polarization, making the Democratic Party less hospitable for members with socially conservative views, like his support for gun rights. When redistricting pitted him against the more liberal Representative Lynn Rivers in a 2002 primary, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California sent $10,000 to Ms. Rivers.
Do you also ask where the peace-loving members of PNAC are? Wingnuts fall on only one side of the ideological spectrum. The term you are looking for is moonbats to describe the "left wing."
But all attempts at distraction aside, don't think no one noticed that your talking point re: Democratic group think went down in flames.
OK two things. I may be missing something, but I don't see the correlation between the stock market and all the actions of all presidents (what was the make up of congress at the time, for instance, and I don't see how the President has that direct of an influence on the economy).
The executive branch is in charge of regulatory agencies like the SEC. An agency that blew off Harry Markopolos for seven years as he tried repeatedly to warn them about Bernie Madoff.
It's the president that submits a budget to Congress. They can certainly mangle it from there, but the basic package is set by the executive branch - like Reagan's enormous income tax cuts for the top brackets.
Plus, you can't conclude from that single "fact" that the federal Democrats thus have our interests in mind (non sequitur).
Oh, the Democratic base would be happy to see DiFi, Pelosi, and Reid looking for a new job. But that Democrats are head and shoulders above the Republicans in any area you care to name is undeniable. The biggest liberal is better on conservative issues than any conservative Republican on the planet (balanced budget, real national defense, teen pregnancy, etc etc).
Queue Republican blaming the current "crisis" on the Democrats and giving "facts" that back him/her up in 3...2...
Oh, I'm sure they'll spout the usual nonsense about how this is all because of the 30 year old Community Reinvestment Act, or how John McCain wanted to reform Fannie Maye/Freddie Mac only to be stopped by the evil Barney Frank. Problem is, their talking points have long since been debunked.
Unemployment is just over 7%. During the great depression it was 25%. In the early 80's it was nearly 10%. The unemployment rate has been higher than it is here at least since 1996 in France, is the sky falling there?
Because unemployment is calculated differently now than it was during the 30's.
Workers that have been out of a job are not counted after a certain period of time. Nor are workers that have given up looking for a job or ones that have taken minimum wage part time jobs because they cannot find full time employment:
U3 is the "official unemployment rate" according to the BLS website. Due to this, it is the current measure of Unemployment that gets focused upon by most media, and therefore the public. It has, over the years, slowly excluded many of the factors that USED to go into how the US reported unemployment. Hence, there has been a gradual decrease in the Unemployment rate that has occurred regardless of what was happening in the Jobs market.
U3 is now comprised in a way that merely repeating it without a slew of caveats borders on fraud.
U6, on the other hand, is the broadest measure of Unemployment: It includes those people counted by U3, plus marginally attached workers (not looking, but want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past), as well as Persons employed part time for economic reasons (they want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule).
The U6 rate for January 2009 is 13.9% - far more worrisome than 7%, and far closer to how it was calculated in the 30's. And Roosevelt didn't have to deal with high unemployment AND a nation debt 2/3 the size of the nations GDP at the same time.
Which would be why every Democratic Senator voted FOR the stimulus bill?
Because maybe they don't want Great Depression 2.0?
The Democratic Party people vote the Party line just about as much as the Republican Party people do.
Right, which explains why the Senate Minority Leader is pro-choice, and two of the most celebrated Republican candidates for the Senate in 2006 were pro-gun control, along with the chair of the RNC. Oh, wait...
Slashdot Mirror
Cop had no basis to search the girl - you can't argue that a physically harmless cell phone is grounds for a terry stop.
Principals are not elected, they are hired.
No different from actors.
Also, calling someone a Douchebag (which is what she did) != Parody.
Nonsense. Many parodies are inherently offensive - see 2 Live Crew's "Harry Woman".
Those black folks who are released after 25+ years in prison because they are somewhat belatedly found innocent (and who got there through sheer negligence/racism) never get any government compensation either. why should those kids get anything?
Did it ever occur to you that we should have both? Compensation for innocent men released after a couple decades in prison AND kids who were wrongly sent to juvi for a few months?
Web pages != harassment.
Privately run prisons are a big business in the U.S.A. Why do you think we imprison more of our population than any other western country?
That and the Selective War on Harmless Drug Users.
The only reason to bring back the fairness doctrine is to get rid of conservative talk radio.
As is usually the case, that wingnut talking point has no basis in reality. A return of the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have any effect on Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Liddy et all. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
What it would do, is force the stations that carry those asshats to balance them out with contrary views. But to get someone as far to the left as these guys are to the right, you'd have to give talk shows to Raul Castro and Kim Jung Il.
I most certainly consider her to be a liberal Democrat.
I'm not surprised, since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Feinstien is "liberal" in two areas: the environment and women's issues. Other than that, she's your standard issue big business warmongering Republican with her head up Israel's ass.
Because of the underlying philosophies. Both left-R's and left-D's have the notion that government is god and must solve everything. The R's do it by twiddling with business, the D's do it by twiddling with the little people. The R's appeal to traditional religions. The D's appeal to anti-religion religions. The end result is the same: more government, less freedom.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you huffed paint on a regular basis and had little to no contact with reality.
Problem: the source in the video is John Boehner, and like all House Republicans, he's generally full of shit. And watching Republicans whine about Democrats shoving legislation through without time for review is like Karl Rove whining that Rahm Emanuel is too partisan - the pot is calling the kettle black.
Royalties. If an employee comes up with a product that makes (or saves) a bunch of money for your firm, give them a few percentage points of the resulting profits.
Was jailbreaking required for that or does it just work?
On what planet does one camera qualify as "systematically"?
And what the hell does failing have to do with accountability? So Bernie Madoff would just be broke instead of broke and going to jail? How bout that peanut factory that sent out food that they knew to be contaminated? Or that coal slurry that is poisoning Kentucky?
How bout this: your link doesn't back up your assertion.
Depends on how you look at the data. This recession is particularly bad on the number of jobs lost. And with our previous economic downturns, we didn't have to grapple with a recession AND a $10 trillion national debt that's 2/3's the size of our GDP.
Whatever you say, ostrich.
Translation: all your talking points got shot down, so you're going to ignore the facts, your own quotes, and will just prattle on with your lame false equivalencies. Yawn.
You mean the program that put hundreds of thousands back to work in a matter of weeks? That helped alleviate the Dust Bowl and started infrastructure projects that we use to this day? What about them?
Yeah, actually, you do. Two of the most effective forms of economic stimulus are food stamps and unemployment benefits. Sadly for you, reality's well known liberal bias strikes again.
School construction funding was cut. Then it was put back in. Then they argued about the funding. Right now it looks like there will be some funds in there, but it went back and forth for a while.
And of all the "liberal policies" that the Democrats managed to push past Bush in the last two years, which ones are specifically responsible for our current crisis?
Just because you don't bother to pay attention doesn't mean they aren't specific.
Ah, yes, gun control. I have fond memories of gun nuts stating how they couldn't vote for Kerry because he supported restrictions on firearms. So they voted for Bush in droves, who said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban. And of all the candidates running for president last year, the one who had pushed the hardest for gun control was Rudy Giuliani. So, naturally, he had a nice chummy meeting with the NRA.
I wonder if there would still be a run on gun stores if Rudy had won the Republican Party and the general election. Well, not really wonder, as we all know IOKIYAR.
And which people "on the left" say this, exactly?
Batshit irrelevant to the idea of supposed Democratic group think. Which you know, was the point of my objection. And in you Dingle quote he's not even bitching about something Pelosi did as speaker, but $10,000 she donated to his primary opponent. Yawn.
I must have missed the part where I said he did. Since you don't even remember what you quoted (if you actually paid any attention to it the first time), here it is again:
More troublesome for Mr. Dingell has been the long-term trend toward ideological polarization, making the Democratic Party less hospitable for members with socially conservative views, like his support for gun rights. When redistricting pitted him against the more liberal Representative Lynn Rivers in a 2002 primary, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California sent $10,000 to Ms. Rivers.
Weak. Sauce.
Do you also ask where the peace-loving members of PNAC are? Wingnuts fall on only one side of the ideological spectrum. The term you are looking for is moonbats to describe the "left wing."
But all attempts at distraction aside, don't think no one noticed that your talking point re: Democratic group think went down in flames.
[Citation needed]
Whatever you say, ostrich. Not even wingnut Republicans are denying that this is the worst recession we've had since the 30's.
Oh, the Democratic base would be happy to see DiFi, Pelosi, and Reid looking for a new job. But that Democrats are head and shoulders above the Republicans in any area you care to name is undeniable. The biggest liberal is better on conservative issues than any conservative Republican on the planet (balanced budget, real national defense, teen pregnancy, etc etc).
Oh, I'm sure they'll spout the usual nonsense about how this is all because of the 30 year old Community Reinvestment Act, or how John McCain wanted to reform Fannie Maye/Freddie Mac only to be stopped by the evil Barney Frank. Problem is, their talking points have long since been debunked.
Because unemployment is calculated differently now than it was during the 30's.
Workers that have been out of a job are not counted after a certain period of time. Nor are workers that have given up looking for a job or ones that have taken minimum wage part time jobs because they cannot find full time employment:
The U6 rate for January 2009 is 13.9% - far more worrisome than 7%, and far closer to how it was calculated in the 30's. And Roosevelt didn't have to deal with high unemployment AND a nation debt 2/3 the size of the nations GDP at the same time.
Because maybe they don't want Great Depression 2.0?
Right, which explains why the Senate Minority Leader is pro-choice, and two of the most celebrated Republican candidates for the Senate in 2006 were pro-gun control, along with the chair of the RNC. Oh, wait...