liar, liar, pants on fire

ait, you were never exposed to agent orange or pcb contamination, so it's e asy for you to be so coldly objective in your comfy rocking chair.

This is no joke. Take a look at the Michigan State advisory for eating safe fish. PCBs and dioxins top the list. Based on location, species, and size there are advisories ranging from 'no restrictions' to 'do not eat these fi sh' and everything in between. This is kind of surprising considering some of the lakes look so pristine. If the catch there is dirty, then it's dirty everywhere.

Dunno why these posts are looking so screwy, they're posted thru Google Gro ups using Chrome ( which is a lightning fast browser ).

That's not Time so much as Winslow Wheeler, director of the Strauss Military Reform Project, and former Congressional budget staff expert. You can read all of his stuff here:

Haha- in this country it called the White House, and that's because it is literally a white house, amazingly enough-LOL.

literally a white house, amazingly enough-LOL.

There is no species more ignorant than a socialist. ...Jim Thompson

Rice 'new Middle East' comments fuel Arab fury over US policy

By Roula Khalaf,Middle East Editor

Published: July 31 2006 03:00 | Last updated: July 31 2006 03:00

As the Qana massacre yesterday carried the tragic face of Israel's Lebanon offensive across the world, the anger of Arab public opinion was directed not only at Israel but at a US administration that has resisted international and regional pressure for an immediate ceasefire.

The gruesome killings follow a week in which US has faced a torrent of criticism on Arab television screens and newspaper pages for its refusal to stop Israel's relentless bombings. The latest wave of anti-Americanism has been exacerbated by Condoleezza Rice's description of the war as the "birth pangs of a new Middle East".

Ms Rice might have been simply reiterating US policy. But rarely has a phrase caught as much attention and provoked as much anger from radicals and moderates, who have seen in it a new and more determined American strategy aimed against Arab interests.

s a

ng

hat

in

You may think so. The British Conservatives just lover Republicans and the "Special relationship" - remember Thatcher and Regan? If Romney managed to upset Cameron and Boris Johnson, he would have had to be genuinely and persistently obnoxious.

He certainly exploited the free market rapaciously. The kind of "real job" he had would have got him a few years in jail as a swindler in any country with a better developed legal system, but it's your system and you like it.

It's probably got more to do with self-preservation than any strong political preference. Mitt Romney looks too much like Dubbya and Regan for comfort.

Poor baby. The US Press doesn't entirely share your hard-on for Romney?

Yes, that is what you think that he's doing. Your flat earth economics does give you a rather inaccurate picture of the world, only slightly coloured by your fixed opinion that Republicans are good and Democrats are bad.

Strange that you think that it is Obama who has condemned millions to poverty, when it was your much loved bankers who blew up and burst the US house price bubble, in the best attempt yet to recreate the Great Depression. The Keynesian measures - which you assure us aren't working - managed to stop the consequent drop in GDP within a few months, and have sustained a weak but persistent growth in GDP since then.

As you have pointed out, most of that growth in GDP has ended up in the pockets of the top 5% of the income distribution, which is not the right place tp direct pump-priming money, but with a Republican majority in congress, Obama hasn't got any chance of directing the money where it would do most good.

te:

krw has always been stupid, but that's a remarkable misperception even for someone a dim as he is. He might just have been confusing Gordon Brown with Peter Mandelson, but those two really don't have much in common.

is

as a

ing

that

n in

er

s literally a white house, amazingly enough-LOL.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is a perfect refutation of that proposition.

cuts to

e but

ial

ent in

crats to

rosperous

h the

failed,

ries of

in every

bring

ance

the

tive

sulate

the

n America

re has

meaning

ter and

t is

..

it, you were never exposed to agent orange or pcb contamination, so it's ea sy for you to be so coldly objective in your comfy rocking chair.

I'm sixty and have lived all over the U. S. working from farm to factory to fab; I've been exposed to *everything*.

So, do you acknowledge your Liberal political slant, and that of the Investigative Fund?

ad that into his biography unless they're simple.

Yup, you have no problem with dehumanizing your chosen enemies at all. Typical Liberal.

Nope, I'm using the Google groups HTML interface in Firefox.

You are the ONLY poster I'm seeing this issue with.

Fix it yourself.

Mark L. Fergerson

...

xes

...

...

is

.g.

Clinton was right -- the Romney Tax Plan fails Arithmetic:

The Final Word on Mitt Romney's Tax Plan By Josh Barro Oct 12, 2012 9:34 AM PT

Mitt Romney's campaign says I'm full of it. I said Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can't simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the Governor?s tax plan," and so I should stop whining. Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.

The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as "analyses," since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I'm not hating -- I blog for a living -- but I don't generally describe my posts as "studies."

None of the analyses do what Romney's campaign says: show that his tax plan is sound. I'm going to walk through them individually, but first I want to make a broad point.

The Tax Policy Center paper that sparked this discussion found that Romney's plan couldn't work because his tax rate cuts would provide $86 billion more in tax relief to people making over $200,000 than Romney could recoup by eliminating tax expenditures for that group. That means his plan is necessarily a tax cut for the rich, so if Romney keeps his promise not to grow the deficit, he'll have to raise taxes on the middle class.

..

Either increase taxes on those still getting wealthier despite the economic slump, or persuade the 1% to start hiring the other 99%. Consumer confidence has yet to recover from the collapse of the housing bubble. Real wages have been stagnant since Reagan took office. The apparition of wealth during the runup of housing prices made homeowners feel wealthy, thus theu took out HELOCs, which are still hanging over their heads.

US Dollar in its Longest Rally Since June, Moment of Truth this Week

Like the 47% of those who own too little to owe Federal income tax. And growing economic inequality which puts the US neck and neck with Cameroon, per the CIA's World Factbook.

The economy was wrecked by Election Day, 2008. Obama's been trying to do triage ever since, despite the dead weight of the GOP.

Let those that caused our current troubles have another whack at running things again?

No.

s a

ng

hat

in

"Keeps"?

Like Mitt's checks from Bain Capital for doing nothing?

While it's true that Obama believes in public schools, I don't think he's going to seize your backyard.

"Privileged" to grow up in an attic bedroom, and to attend the Chicago Public Schools? Are you thinking perhaps of Ann Romney, daughter of a defense contractor (Navy) and student at the all-male Cranbrook's sister school (Kingswood)?

No, that's not what Michelle said at all. She said she was proud -- not just proud, but really proud -- of her country, for the first time as an adult. When was the last time you were REALLY proud of the US?

Romney has not had a "real job" since 1999, when he quit stripping the assets from corporations and shipping jobs to Mexico. He worked for a non-profit for the next three years, and had a government job for four years after that. Next follows six years of unemployment. He's been living off the hard work of other people, ever since.

What, did he send one of Ann's Cadillacs to pick the girl up?

Is this just glossolalia, or is it based in reality?

GW Bush, II?

e:

e a

er

his

f as a

rting

m that

ion in

ns

er

...

fter

ly

ey

A fair exchange. The US excels at making movies, while the UK excels at historic wreckage.

f...

Taking property people you envy doesn't create any jobs at all--none-- and it doesn't raise anyone out of poverty. And, it doesn't come close to paying even for all the new stuff Barack's added to the baseline spending. All that is wasted or worse, harmful.

Real wages have been dropping under Barack, falling faster in the "recovery" than in the recession.

Like telling people that doctors and insurance companies and others are evil, and that you should hate rich people. Or his obvious race- baiting, or saying that his campaign wouldn't bother with working class white people.[1]

Obama's threatening businesses--except his friends--and heaping extra overhead on them. That dampens everything.

The dead weight of the GOP is an excuse, for the gullible. I've actually been watching the disastrous extra stimulus spending Barack's proposed. He calls it all "jobs," but it's favoritism and nonsense. We're much better off without it.

All that spending hurts us, in a dozen different ways.

The people most responsible for our financial crisis are running the place right now. Badly. Doing the same things, bigger.

What Obama proposes is a society where the ultra-rich patronize the permanently poor, and he controls both.

Wrong.

You really ought to check things. If I believed all the untruths you do, I'd reach the same conclusions. But, so much of it's based on myth, and misunderstanding; that's the problem.

Michelle plainly said what she said. She walked it back later, pronto, because people complained, but that's what she said.

The "rich" aren't evil, and they're mostly not even the same people from decade to decade. Taking all they've got doesn't fix a single thing that ails you, only destroys things.

Every day. It's a great country, one that's been an inspiration, a well-spring of freedom and prosperity to the entire world.

It's not perfect--it's not run by perfect people--but it's as good as has ever been.

Of late the element most vital to its success--liberty--is being traded wholesale for the promise of someone else's stuff, by people who don't understand why that's bad, or who don't care.

Good will win out over the misplaced and miscalculated greed and envy, if for no other reason than the people you hate will simply stop making stuff. Atlas will shrug--it's already happening. There, that's better. Not.

arbitrary cuts to

alone but

presidential

agreement in

he's

Democrats to

democratic, prosperous

with the

has failed,

series of

as in every

will bring

balance

on the

provocative

consulate

how the

calls on America

There has

symbolic meaning

Center and

end it is

teleprompter

to.

(GM)

wait, you were never exposed to agent orange or pcb contamination, so it's easy for you to be so coldly objective in your comfy rocking chair.

read that into his biography unless they're simple.

material.

And add that there are several other google groups posters not having a problem, is must be your setup somehow.

?-)

Which property were you thinking of? The shareholder interest in a bankrupt car company? Letting the car company go bankrupt and stop trading would have put a lot of people into poverty.

The rescue plan didn't do a thing for the shareholders - who hadn't exercised their right to sling out an incompetent management - but did at least preserve the value of the company to the economy as a going concern, and kept the employees in work.

In your opinion, based on your "flat earth" economic ideas - better described as misconceptions.

Labour always does worse than capital during a recession - having capital is - fundamentally - having the resources to be able to sit out a recession. Labour is forced to take on lower-paying jobs to keep eating. Capital can afford to be selective about hiring out of the enlarged pool of unemployed candidates.

The Tea Party's insistence on sustaining Dubbya's tax cuts for the rich hasn't done anything for the 99% either.

My browser can't find this, and in any event blogs aren't exactly evidence. If your favourite right-wing nitwit shares you point of view, you may find this comforting, but the rest of the world merely notes that the US hosts a lot of right-wing nitwits.

Actually, the recession has been doing that, and your beloved bankers created the recession by blowing up the US house price bubble until it burst.

If you were open to slightly more up to date economic insights, you might realise that having the GDP shrink at 6% a year wouldn't make anybody better off. Those who don't understand history have a demented enthusiasm for repeating old mistakes.

But nowhere near as much as an uninhibited replay of the Great Depression would. It's much the lesser of two evils.

US house prices are rising? Choose you politically partisan allegations more carefully - careless claims cost credibility.

Actually, that's what the Tea Party wants and - by the dint of controlling congress - have made significant steps towards creating.

Obama wanted to cut Dubbya's tax cuts for the rich, but didn't have the congressional majority required to make it happen.

His advisers have probably told him that the right way to distribute the stimulus money is by raising social security benefits for the very poor

- who can be relied on to spend all they get - but that's moral hazard, so it has to go to the banking system, rewarding them for having engineered the recession in the first place, which is the kind of moral hazard that the Tea Party is prepared to ignore.

What does a high school drop out know about the poor or ultra-rich ?

Mostly? Quite a few of them inherit their wealth, and the UK maxim is "clogs to clogs in three generations" but having wealthy parents buys real advantages - more in the US than in most advanced industrial countries, where the quality of the education you get is less dependent on the suburb you grow up in.

This shows up in the social mobility statistics - you are less likely to see a change in social class from generation to generation in the US than in say Germany.

Taking all that they've got would be silly. Getting them to pay a higher rate of income tax than the less well-off works quite well - rather better than your "cossett the rich" approach.

Has been. It's rather dropped behind the competiton in recent years with an underperforming primary and secondary edcuation system and an inadequarte and expensive health care system, assessed over the population as a whole.

You may not have noticed quite how abominably you system short changes your poor, and you certainly show no signs of caring about its inadequacies in this area.

Which used to be pretty good, but lots of other countries now do better.

Sadly, you confuse liberty with the liberty of the well-off to cream off most of the benefits of economic growth, which actually stunts thier - as well as your - economic growth, and probably makes you blind to boot.

Your economic short-sightedness certainly does take some explaining.

Miscalcuted greed is doing rather better for itself in the US than is good it's own benefit, let alone the advantage of the country as a whole, but you can't see that - you right-wing blinkers give you a very restrricted filed of view.