55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 05:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Help him out? Hell no! ican isn't no socio-leftist! He can embarrass himself , by himself!

He don't need no handouts!

T
K
O
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 05:20 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Help him out? Hell no! ican isn't no socio-leftist! He can embarrass himself , by himself!

He don't need no handouts!

T
K
O


Hand-up, Brah. Hand-up. I'm trying to help him better his situation Laughing Teach a man to fish and all that

Cyclotpichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 06:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn, as things stand now, it is your opinion that what Righttruth claimed were the 12 errors in Obama's last speech to Congress on healthcare, September 10, 2009, is not valid; and it is my opinion that what Righttruth claimed were the 12 errors in Obama's last speech to Congress on healthcare, September 9, 2009, is valid.

If you were to do what you said in a previous post you will do, I will then do what I said in a previous post I will do. I will do the work of responding--with additional evidence I opine is valid--to whatever you claim and whatever evidence you provide supporting whatever you claim that is in your opinion valid evidence, or you claim is valid evidence.

Here again, just like you predicted, is Righttruths analysis of "President Obama's September 9, 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress outlining his new healthcare plan."
Quote:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/09/analysis-of-president-obamas-speech-to-congress-on-healthcare.html
September 10, 2009
Analysis of President Obama’s Speech to Congress on Healthcare
Analysis of President Obama’s Speech to Congress on Healthcare
From Tennessee Center for Policy Research
September 10, 2009
Based on a compilation of independent sources, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has analyzed President Obama’s September 9th speech to a joint session of Congress outlining his new healthcare plan. That analysis is below:


{1}The President Said: “{B}uying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower"about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.” 1

{2}The President Said: “There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get [health insurance] coverage.”

The Reality Is: As many as 75% of the uninsured could afford coverage, meaning that less than 10 million uninsured Americans may be unable to afford coverage. 2

{3}The President Said: “In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point…More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too.”

The Reality Is: This is a problem because health insurance is directly tied to employer-based coverage. If Americans received the same tax benefits for obtaining individual coverage as their employers, they could take their health insurance with them when they left or lost their job. The President’s proposal not only fails to address the serious problems with employer-based coverage, it promotes it heavily.

{4}The President Said: “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it.”

The Reality Is: While Americans do in fact spend more on healthcare than any other nation, “{w}hen you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries.” 3

{5}The President Said: “{I}f you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

The Reality Is: Many employers will be forced to modify their plans to meet the new government standards and still others will simply drop coverage for their employees, forcing employees to obtain their own coverage or join the government-run plan. The Urban Institute estimates that up to 47 million Americans will lose their current coverage, while the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 114 million Americans’ coverage will be dropped. 4

{6}The President Said: “[Insurance companies] will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies…”

The Reality Is: Forcing insurance companies to eliminate caps and cover routine treatments will drastically increase health insurance costs and compel insurance companies to skimp on important and necessary treatments. Individuals can purchase coverage for the treatments mentioned, but it should be optional, not compulsory.

{7}The President Said: “{U}nder my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance…”

The Reality Is: Despite the fact that the President pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year, a senior member of his own Administration admits that a mandate “will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.” 5

{8}The President Said: “{A}n additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.”

The Reality Is: Public entities never compete on a level playing field with private companies. First, public entities have an unlimited supply of investors"the American taxpayer. Second, the public entities set the rules that the private companies must abide by, giving them an unfair advantage. A public option would actually “reduce competition by driving lower-cost private health plans out of business.” 6

{9}The President Said: “I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”

The Reality Is: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also intended to be self-sufficient, but they have been bailed out and could eventually cost taxpayers upwards of $200 billion.

{10}The President Said: “I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.” 7

The Reality Is: Actually, the President proposes setting up a bureaucracy between patients and doctors, called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council. This new body “would enhance Medicare’s ability to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on government bureaucrats’ arbitrary valuations of those patients’ lives.”

{11}The President Said: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future.” 8

The Reality Is: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leading current plan, H.R. 3200, will increase the deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years alone.

{12}The President Said: “This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies.” 9

The Reality Is: While geared toward “Cadillac” insurance policies, this fee will be passed on to consumers, so those forced to purchase expensive policies because they are unhealthy or need expansive treatment will be hit the hardest.

References:
1. “Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals,” Congressional Budget Office, Dec. 2008, p. XIV.
2. M. Kate Bundorf and Mark V. Pauly, “Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured?,” National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 9281, October 2002.
3. Michael Tanner, “The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World,” Cato Institute, No. 613, March 18, 2008, p. 5.
4. John Holahan and Linda J. Blumberg, “Is the Public Plan Option a Necessary Part of Health Reform?,” Urban Institute, June 26, 2009, p. 8; “Analysis of the July 15 draft of The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” The Lewin Group, July 17, 2009.
5. Sherry A. Glied, Ph.D., “Universal Coverage One Head at a Time " The Risks and Benefits of Individual Health Insurance Mandates.”
6. Michael F. Cannon, “Fannie Med? Why a "Public Option" Is Hazardous to Your Health,” Cato Institute, No. 642, July 27, 2009.
7. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailouts of $200 Billion?,” New York Times, July 23, 2009.
8. Michael F. Cannon, “Sorry folks, Sarah Palin is (partly) right,” Detroit Free Press, August 19, 2009.
9. Congressional Budget Office, <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf> (accessed September 10, 2009).


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 07:12 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

If only us "libruls" were more like the characters on Bonanza, then foofie might like us and think we actually care about our country.


I find it really disgusting how Foofie and others think they can speak for every American that ever served and was wounded. My father was a disabled Vet Foofie from his service in the Korean War. He passed away but I doubt he would agree with you one bit.


Nor would I want anyone to agree with me. I am just making my opinion known; however, while there are people that disagree with me, there are others that do agree with me. So, do not claim I am attempting to speak for every American, since that would be a silly thought for me to have.

Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 07:25 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

MOS is not an exclusive term to the Army. All members of the armed forces have had an MOS. That you are unable to provide one is evidence to me that in addition to being a mealy-mouthed hypocritical son-of-a-bitch, you are also a liar, who never spent one day in the armed forces.

You may be assured that i don't give a rat's ass whether or not you are Jewish, because it is immaterial to the fact that you are a mealy-mouthed hypocritical son-of-a-bitch and a liar.


I do not want the world to know what I did in the military. I must acquiesce to your doubts about me? What is my time in the military a litmus test for?

How does being in the military qualify me, or anyone, to have feelings/beliefs about this country? How would it disqualify me, if I had not been in the military?

My reticence to be specific, and answer you questions, is also based on the fact I really would like you to not really know me. I really do not have any curiosity about you. Why would I want to share facts about my life with someone that just refers to me by a list of ad-hominems?

All my above questions where rhetorical. Do not answer them, as real questions directed to you.

I think I have had enough of your charming personality. Do not waste your time replying.

P.S. Your concern about my military service is archaic, since the current generation of males do not have a draft. And, women, never having been drafted, have just as much right to talk about whatever subject it was that got you concerned about my military service, they not being in the military would not disqualify their opinions.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 07:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You're a little bit of a nutjob, Ican,


That's not possible. Foxy, Okie and some others have vouched for Ican.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 08:49 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
What is my time in the military a litmus test for?


You'd know that better than anyone else, dipshit, you're the one who made snotty remarks about the military service of others. I'd have no "concern" about your service if you hadn't brought it up, idiot.

And i continue to believe that you're lying about having served in the military.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 08:54 pm
In a typically idiotic post, Ican claimed that those with whom he disagrees politically (and for whom he has incredibly stupid acronyms) do not understand certain concepts which he alleges to be basic to the American polity. To that post, the mealy-mouthed hypocritical son-of-a-bitch Foofie added:

Quote:
I would include the insult to those that had family that died, or were injured, in wars fought to maintain our Republic going back to the colonial days.


Naturally, therefore, on wonders just how much the mealy-mouthed hypocritical son-of-a-bitch (and probable liar) Foofie has contributed in the way of national service.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 07:42 am
@Foofie,
Perhaps you didn't really mean what you said then Foofie?

You stated
Quote:
I am making the assumption that many of the families that have been here, going back to the early twentieth century or earlier, have had males in a few wars, and therefore for those families who suffered loss due to those (men in earlier) wars, redistribution of wealth is an insult to the men who fought for a country where previously one was allowed to keep what one earned. You know like the Cartwrights in Bonanza. The America that those men died for was an America where one was allowed to keep the fruits of one's labor.

You proposed to speak for everyone that made a sacrifice in war. There is no other way to read your idiotic statement. To claim it is an insult to those men has no other meaning than you are saying they are insulted. That means you know what they would say and are speaking for them.

Yeah.. you are right, it is rather silly for you to have that thought. It was silly when you said it. Your thought was silly when I responded to it and your original thought is still silly when you deny it and admit anyone having such thoughts would be silly.

Not only was your original statement disgusting Foofie but your denial that you said it is equally as disgusting.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 09:29 am
Krugman defines the Republican party.


THE POLITICS OF SPITE

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 4, 2009
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it " whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences " in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage " just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim " based mainly on lies about death panels and so on " that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan " and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending " growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals " ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 09:48 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Oh, I see: so if I say that, in my opinion, ican is a notorious pedophile who rapes little boys, and you claim that you are not a notorious pedophile who rapes little boys, then it's up to you to come up with evidence to prove that I'm wrong?

Correct!

Well, then, let me just state that ican is a notorious pedophile who rapes little boys.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 09:52 am
@Foofie,
Do you think that the incredible wealth of Paris Hilton, Teresa Heinz, the Mellon and Walton heirs, et al., were earned through hard work? What about Ken Lewis, whose hard work succeeded in driving down the value of the stock of Bank of America?
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 10:44 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
I've changed my mind. I initially claimed those 12 points were valid. I am now opining those 12 points are valid.


Ican:

What is your "opinion" based upon? When you assert, in your opinion, that a particular point is valid, is your opinion based upon your feelings and biases or is it based upon relevant evidence and reasoned judgment? What weight, if any, should others subscribe to your opinions when you refuse to support or defend your opinions with relevant evidence and reasoned judgment? After all, you are not asserting, in your opinion (judgment), a vacation in the mountain is better than a vacation at the seashore. You are asserting, in your opinion (judgment), that a point is valid. In the absence of relevant evidence and legitimate reasons to support your judgment, your judgment is WORTHLESS.

I suggest that you review the following article from the Foundation for Critical Thinking:

Three Categories of Questions: Crucial Distinctions

Quote:
Many pseudo critical thinking approaches present all judgments as falling into two exclusive and exhaustive categories: fact and opinion. Actually, the kind of judgment most important to educated people and the kind we most want to foster falls into a third, very important, and now almost totally ignored category, that of reasoned judgment.

A judge in a court of law is expected to engage in reasoned judgment; that is, the judge is expected not only to render a judgment, but also to base that judgment on sound, relevant evidence and valid legal reasoning.

A judge is not expected to base his judgments on his subjective preferences, on his personal opinions, as such. You might put it this way, judgment based on sound reasoning goes beyond, and is never to be equated with, fact alone or mere opinion alone. Facts are typically used in reasoning, but good reasoning does more than state facts. Furthermore, a position that is well-reasoned is not to be described as simply "opinion." Of course, we sometimes call the judge's verdict an "opinion," but we not only expect, we demand that it be based on relevant and sound reasoning.

Here's a somewhat different way to put this same point. It is essential when thinking critically to clearly distinguish three different kinds of questions:

---- (1) Those with one right answer (factual questions fall into this category). What is the boiling point of lead?

---- (2) Those with better or worse answers (well-reasoned or poorly reasoned answers). How can we best address the most basic and significant economic problems of the nation today?

---- (3) Those with as many answers as there are different human preferences (a category in which mere opinion does rule). Which would you prefer, a vacation in the mountains or one at the seashore?

Only the third kind of question is a matter of sheer opinion. The second kind is a matter of reasoned judgment " we can rationally evaluate answers to the question (using universal intellectual standards such as clarity, depth, consistency and so forth).

When questions that require better or worse answers are treated as matters of opinion, pseudo critical thinking occurs. Students come, then, to uncritically assume that everyone's "opinion" is of equal value. Their capacity to appreciate the importance of intellectual standards diminishes, and we can expect to hear questions such as these: What if I don't like these standards? Why shouldn't I use my own standards? Don't I have a right to my own opinion? What if I'm just an emotional person? What if I like to follow my intuition? What if I don't believe in being "rational?" They then fail to see the difference between offering legitimate reasons and evidence in support of a view and simply asserting the view as true. The failure to teach students to recognize, value, and respect good reasoning is one of the most significant failings of education today.





georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 10:54 am
@Debra Law,
I agree with you Debra. However this claim/opinion taxonomy was imposed on Ichan by Cyclo - in his typical pseudo authoritarian manner.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 10:55 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I agree with you Debra. However this claim/opinion taxonomy was imposed on Ichan by Cyclo in his typical pseudo authoritarian manner.


I imposed nothing; it was originally Ican who made the distinction between Claims and Opinions on this matter. Try actually reading the thread before throwing accusations around.

Besides, I have no ability to impose anything upon anyone here; I can only set the guidelines for my own participation, which I'm sure you will agree is perfectly within my right as an individual to do.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 11:22 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
I am just making my opinion known; however, while there are people that disagree with me, there are others that do agree with me.


Who cares? Your declaration that you are making your opinion known is meaningless. Opinions are not of equal weight or value. Your opinion, regardless of its alleged popularity (unverified statement that people agree with you) or lack thereof (unverified statement that others disagree with you), has no value whatsoever unless your opinion is supported by relevant evidence and legitimate reasoning.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 12:37 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Do you think that the incredible wealth of Paris Hilton, Teresa Heinz, the Mellon and Walton heirs, et al., were earned through hard work? What about Ken Lewis, whose hard work succeeded in driving down the value of the stock of Bank of America?


I was not planning on thinking about the above. Nor will I, just because you choose to ask me. I was talking about the hard work by nameless families, that collectively had to do work, inorder for the U.S. to be a modern country.

If there are some folks that inherit wealth, that was part of the motivation for their earlier relatives to work hard. Many people are concerned about making their respective families have an easier go at it in the future. So, I do not mind that there are wealthy diletantes, or idle rich, since that vindicates the goals and hard work of earlier relatives.

Needless to say, there are those from hard working families that have not acquired much from their relatives' prior hard work, and might resent those that are today's materialistic winners.

By the way, there are few ditch diggers, I believe, that went to college. In my own opinion, there are some liberals today, who may be the first generation in their respective families to get a college education, and might very much resent the social class structure and wealth of those that come from families, whose members went to elite schools back when one's own relatives were poor immigrants. I believe, within many a liberal there lies a sour grapes attitude, that regardless of one's higher education, they are still not part of any social class higher than one's working class family.

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 12:43 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

Foofie wrote:
I am just making my opinion known; however, while there are people that disagree with me, there are others that do agree with me.


Who cares? Your declaration that you are making your opinion known is meaningless. Opinions are not of equal weight or value. Your opinion, regardless of its alleged popularity (unverified statement that people agree with you) or lack thereof (unverified statement that others disagree with you), has no value whatsoever unless your opinion is supported by relevant evidence and legitimate reasoning.


Opinions are not meaningless; otherwise, we would not hear all the opinion polls on the news. Opinions, when held by many equate to votes, that equate to won elections. And, that is whether or not the opinion was valid.

I suspect you do not subscribe to some, or many, of my opinions. And, to be candid, I scan your posts, without reading them thoroughly. That too reflects my opinion (of your posts).

Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:26 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Foofie wrote:
I am just making my opinion known; however, while there are people that disagree with me, there are others that do agree with me.


Who cares? Your declaration that you are making your opinion known is meaningless. Opinions are not of equal weight or value. Your opinion, regardless of its alleged popularity (unverified statement that people agree with you) or lack thereof (unverified statement that others disagree with you), has no value whatsoever unless your opinion is supported by relevant evidence and legitimate reasoning.


Opinions are not meaningless; otherwise, we would not hear all the opinion polls on the news. Opinions, when held by many equate to votes, that equate to won elections. And, that is whether or not the opinion was valid.

I suspect you do not subscribe to some, or many, of my opinions. And, to be candid, I scan your posts, without reading them thoroughly. That too reflects my opinion (of your posts).




This is a discussion board.

This isn't a forum where you may stand upon a soap box, hurl lofty statements at people, and then evade the discomfort of having your words subjected to the crucible of examination by making the juvenile argument that you are merely stating a personal opinion. Come to the discussion prepared to support and defend your statements or face the criticism you deserve for your cop-out.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:30 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:

Opinions are not meaningless; otherwise, we would not hear all the opinion polls on the news.


This is a really bad argument; the News does not determine what is meaningful or not, it reports on that which it feels will make it the most money by reporting on.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 04:32:44