keepthefaith

I have not read it either, but I believe it pertains to the frequency in which the Bills win the Superbowl.

I agree and what will you be doing in 10 years?

In case anyone missed this last year, link to Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism. Apparently it's a threat in our society and conditions are right for violence. Mentions tea partiers. The fact that it's labeled right-wing says it all and this reminds me of how ridiculous a pick Napolitano was for this position. http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

It's on all of us particulary in primaries where candidates are selected.

You have to get good candidates to run because the party label on a candidate gaurantees a lot of votes for even a crappy candidate. We the people, are a big part of the problem IMO as the majority of Americans don't pay atention to what politicians are doing.

If that's what your crystal ball says, fine. Otherwise, don't you think it's a bit early to judge this team when you haven't seen the opening day roster?

Agree. We're in serious **** here with the defecits accelerating as they are. Have to hope that the new Congress next year has a determination to cut spending. We have to demand this from them.

Sounds to me like the writers of your book are simply looking for a new revenue source. So, if we acted on your idea here, how would it be funded and would independent for profit journalism sill be allowed or would that be outlawed? You mentioned a $30 billion industry in an earlier post so should we simply put another $30 billion on the backs of the taxpayers so that we can all enjoy this new form of high quality journalism?

So countries with subsidized journalism have proven to have high quality unbiased reporting? Even if it worked somewhere else, what makes you think that the trail of money in this country wouldn't ruin it? It's your argument that "for profit" journalism is bad. Just because the money comes from taxpayers the news woud now be good?

He was criticized for not having experience in foreign affairs. Making this promise gave him an international talking point with little chance of scrutiny on the matter.

It's not accurate to say journalism hasn't been profitable for 30 years. Plenty of journalism companies have made profits. Fewer are profitable now is true due to the fragmentation of the market (lot's of free stuff can be read online). The journalism industry has to figure out how to be profitable and that starts with producing a product that people are willing to buy. Apparently the public does not see the quality they want in for-pay journalism. The best argument against subsidized journalism is what DC Tom said regarding freedom of the press.

Typical liberal blather. Few would dispute that Bush and Congress during his 2 terms were fiscally irresponsible. We know that, it's old news. The concern now is what is happening now, not in the past. The big mistake Obama is making is not realizing after being in the seat for a few months that the priority list might need to be revised. The mistake people like you continue to make is to respond to genuine questions on policies with an attack on the opposite party, and when you do this, you really look silly. The policies that Obama and the Democratic controlled congresss are supporting are being challenged with well founded questions. Gitmo, the $787 billion recovery act, Cap and Trade and Health care reform to name a few. Genuine questions and concerns have been raised and when they are raised, the response from politicians, or media or other liberals like you on this board is to simply deflect the issue by attacking the other side. Those responses are nothing more than thinly veiled covers for the real answer which is that you have no answer. You have no answer because you either don't know or there is not a decent argument in support of the policy in question. I'm quite sure that deep down inside plenty of Democrat politicians and voters are looking at Obama's decisions with a lot of concern. Regardless of where you sit politically, the numbers by which his policies can be measured suck and will continue to suck because he is simply making one bad decision after another. Never mind that this is my opinion, the numbers simply don't lie.

You thinking he's a centrist explains a lot.

I don't care what he says. It's what Obama is doing that's atrocious. Everyone but a select few on this board knows it.

I agree on the stupidity, but a good case could be made that Obama has been thinking about the atrocities that's he's commiting now for quite some time.

Nobody can provide any rational suport for this bill as written because it's a poorly designed plan. The real crime is that most people want reform, the need for reform is there, the stakes are high for many Americans and in the end we're getting a piece of **** when it is/was possible to do something quite good. What's being done borders on treason IMO.

This story is getting some air time here in Chicago. Will be interesting to see how Mr. Utah votes.

Who said that's OK and what does that have to do with Massa? Absolutely fukking nothing.

JUst trying to deflect attention away from the bunch from Illinois.

Rahm's handywork I would guess.

Not surprised. There have been many reports of stimulus fund abuse. Why would any of us have confidence in the Federal Government's ability to make efficient use of money?

Party pooper.

Don't ask, don't tell and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

No, it's a black thing. Next time you see one of your black buddies, tell him you want to meet him at 8:00 CPT (color people time). He'll know what you mean.

Political pressure on those sitting on the fence will be enormous, maybe as great as at any time in history. I'd wager that they'll cave to Nancy and some back room deal. A deal outside of this bill.