PastaJoe

Since you don't even know what is on MSNBC, for you to comment on other networks was disingenuous at best. At least I know what shows are on FOXNews, having watched all of them at various times, which confirmed what others have said about their bias. Sheppard Smith is the only one who tries to give a balanced presentation.

People without a goal and vision are less likely to push for solutions, and are willing to settle for war, health care for some, and intolerance. Too bad you're willing to settle for less than success.

Really? MSNBC has a morning show headed by Joe Scarborough. Pat Buchanan is a regular analyst on their shows throughout the day. Hardball regularly has on Republican congressmen and strategists, and former Bush and Cheney advisers. Just last night they had a Republican congressman from Michigan on who's put forth a bill to investigate Obama's reaction to the Gates incident and call on Obama to apologize for his comments.

If Republicans supported spending more money on funding clinics like you suggest, that would have been done years and would have alleviated part of the problem. Why have they never supported that alternative?

Part of Sarah Palin's "No Mas" speech yesterday as read by William Shatner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCdqRbWYWbU

You could paint the walls white, but then have a wide blue stripe going horizontally across the walls, with a thinner red stripe above and a thinner gold stripe below the wider blue stripe.

Did I say Iranians were Arabs, Brokeback? No, I said the Arab states, i.e. the other countries in the region who have diplomatic, economic, and religious ties to Iran. How does bashing Bush somehow make the reason for invading Iraq more valid? You neo-con numbskulls think the first solution to any problem is attacking another country. You want Obama to attack Iran but at the same time be more supportive of the protesters in Iran. If you don't think those protesters will turn their opinion against the U.S. if we attacked without an imminent threat to the U.S. then you know nothing about nationalism.

"The diplomats emphasize there are no indications of plans for such a nuclear test. They told the AP Friday it was unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West — and chances of Israeli attack — with such a course." Like the article says, just because they know how doesn't mean they will. I think the Arab states will pressure them to abstain from assembling a nuclear weapon, they don't want a nuclear arms race in the middle east. There would be no advantage for Iran to use a nuclear weapon, they want to leave it uncertain so no other countries threaten them with an attack in the future. They are entitled to create nuclear power facilities for civilian use. They want to be able to export more of their oil to increase revenue and boost their economy.

The same arguments were made about Roosevelt's New Deal. But now most economists agree that the reason the recovery took longer back then was that the government didn't spend enough to restart economic growth. And that is what many are saying now, that the 2nd stimulus package (Bush had the 1st last year) wasn't big enough. Like trying to prime an engine, but only giving it 2 squirts of gas when it needs 3 to turn over. Of course only about 10% of the 2nd stimulus has been spent so far, so I think it's too early to tell. Like your doctor saying you need 10 treatments to get relief from your ailment, and you saying it's a failure after only the 1st treatment.

Not a good analogy because unions have contracts which specifically spell out the rules, while salaried personnel have to rely on some general guidelines that are open to interpretation by the company management. If a union member applies for a salaried position, they have to abide by the rules that apply to salaried positions. More facts on the firefighter case are that this was the first time that this test was given, it was weighed to count more than other considerations like interviews, and the results of this new test was that it disproportionately disqualified black applicants compared to the historical numbers of black applicants that passed the old testing methods. So New Haven had good reason and were within their rights to throw out this new test after it showed that it wasn't consistent with previous tests. The district court, as well as Sotomayor's court, may have felt empathy for those who did best on the test, but used the law and precedent to decide the case, not empathy. It was the 5 most conservative judges on the Supreme Court who used their empathy to go against previous similar rulings and change the standard. But at the time Sotomayor had to make a judgement, it was not the standard. So if you don't want judges to change the standards by their rulings and legislate from the bench, then you can't fault Sotomayor; she followed the legal standard.

And at the same time, Ilan Berman, on the conservative AFPC think tank's website, praises Obama's actions regarding Afganistan. http://www.afpc.org/publication_listings/viewArticle/697 Shocker!

"Can't You Hear Me Knocking" - I like the long instrumental at the end. But I'd take the Beatles body of work over the Stones.

Interesting that you support an activist court when it suits your needs. The way conservatives talk about the firefighter case makes it sound like Sotomayor was the lone judge who made the original ruling for New Haven, and I'll bet alot of people who are arguing about it believe that without looking at the facts. The fact is that the case was decided by a district court. It then went to the Second Circuit court, of which she is one of the members who upheld the lower court ruling based on precedent. The conservative members of the Supreme Court ruled against precedent in reversing the ruling, thus taking on the activist role that conservatives always complain about.

5-4 is hardly a smack down. Something like 7-2, as in Roe vs Wade, is a smack down.

$33 an hour, I'd say keep doing that work. I've been unemployed since April, I have an M.B.A., and would jump at a chance to do manual labor that paid that much. He needs to be patient and wait for the economy to improve. There's plenty of people doing work that they didn't go to school for just to make ends meet. Maybe look at some internships that would give him experience and his foot in the door.

I take it you won't be reading Sarah Palin's book.

The video shows him turning to help someone down the step. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31849470#31849470

Valley Club president John Duesler's color-coded explanation, which he gave to NBC10 Tuesday: "There is a lot of concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion . . . and the atmosphere of the club." http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/...Complexion.html

Actually Franken is best known for being one of the original writers on SNL, the acting was just a part time job. And he's also known for his work with the USO, who gave him a Merit Award for his service through visiting injured and deployed service members. If Palin could be driven out of politics by the likes of David Letterman, then she doesn't have the backbone to be in politics, let alone run for president. She could take some lessons from Hillary about putting up with critics and even jokes about children (i.e. Rush comparing Chelsea to a dog).

Check your facts. What proof do you have that he forced her or intimidated her to do anything? Did she file for sexual harassment? Did she even make a claim of harassment after it was public? No. It was consensual sex between adults.

Possible reasons for leaving: 1. Her family will be taking over the time slot occupied by the "Jon & Kate plus 8" show. 2. She's one of the women that Gov. Sanford only got to 2nd base with. 3. FOXNews needs another morning show host with good legs to titillate the old white guys who watch it. 4. Dick Cheney needs an opening act for his, "I can't wait to say I told you so" tour.

Sarah Palin is not going to run for reelection as governor. In fact she's quitting before her term is up. Maybe she needs the next three years to study up on foreign policy. It should be a fun Republican primary. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ Just saw her speech. WTF? She's all over the place. "I'm passing the ball so the team can win." It sounds like she's making a preemptive move in anticipation of something bad coming out about her. I'm so glad she's the Republican's problem to handle. http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream1

He won't be over the top, but the conservatives will represent anything he does as over the top. He'll be like Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold. But their type of pragmatic progressive views drive conservatives crazy. And conservatives being upset is a good indicator that progressive policies are being put forth, which are the policies I agree with.

Franken will make a fine senator, following in the legacy of Paul Wellstone. Graduated from Harvard with honors, he's very intelligent and articulate. He'll drive the conservatives nuts with his progressive views, which is just fine with me.

Consensual sex between adults isn't harassment. Bubba didn't have a problem with gays in the military like Republicans do. He took it as far as was politically feasible at the time with 'don't ask, don't tell', and still got political flack for just that interim step. And of course Sanford called for Bubba to resign, but won't do the same himself.