carmenc

Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat

Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat

Keynseans would recommend deficit spending in a recession or for urgent national defense needs. Trouble is, we've been deficit spending like there's no tomorrow in the good times too, when we should have been saving.

Or are smaller. Which is most likely, given that California has the largest state government. . It also has the largest state population. A per-capita comparison would be more useful.

Proposition 13 was Socialist? Jarvis and Gann were Socialists? You are seriously misinformed.

Germany,Britain, Austria, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain have already got schemes going, and the US is imminent. Some of them, like Germany's, just get old cars off the road without fuel economy requirements. Others (Britain, US) have modest requirements. My own view: the US rules have fuel economy requirements that are way too weak.

AGREED

Just found this? You are only 59 years late.

they were on her ass LONG before she ran for any office, they were on her ass before Bill even got elected... they were denigrating Chelsea from day 1 (I listen to 'talk' radio all the time, especially when I need my feeling that radio blowhards are know nothing media whores confirmed) so take your 'Hilary is an exception' argument and shove it... if anyone is an exception, they are ALL an exception ... Hillary put herself up for public criticism when she and Bill proclaimed themselves as a 2-for-1 package deal while campaigning for the presidency the first time. I don't recall ever hearing or reading anyone ragging on Chelsea to the extent the Palin girls have been. One of the few things Bill & Hill did right was to keep Chelsea out of the spotlight. You weren't paying attention. Chelsea got a lot of very negative press about her looks. So did Amy Carter.

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs? As I recall, we HAD to have to stimulus to keep unemployment in check...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it has. (see attached) So Bush's Recession is worse than originally thought. It was only a few months ago that you right wingers were denying "the R word" altogether. And Obama's recession is even worse - sorry, since you guys keep spouting that Bush was responsible for the slight recession in 2001, that means 2009 is Obama's baby. Try again. Why do you choose to make yourself look absurd? As I told him - you don't get to play it both ways. If the recession in 01 was Bush's fault, as y'all keep saying, then this is all on Obama. I know, I know...being held to what you've said before is tough - buck up, you can handle it. Like THIS? You grasp at straws.

The Soviets really did hold a number of prisoners well past the wars end. Regardless, "it happened before" is poor justification for it to happen again. True. I now see that bodypilot90 and piper think the USA should emulate the USSR under Stalin.

In that case, pols shouldn't put their families in the spotlight when it suits their campaign aspirations.

Remind me again...where was your 'let's wait and see if it works' support of any of the last administration's programs? As I recall, we HAD to have to stimulus to keep unemployment in check...unfortunately, it doesn't look like it has. (see attached) So Bush's Recession is worse than originally thought. It was only a few months ago that you right wingers were denying "the R word" altogether. And Obama's recession is even worse - sorry, since you guys keep spouting that Bush was responsible for the slight recession in 2001, that means 2009 is Obama's baby. Try again. Why do you choose to make yourself look absurd?

The fact that things happened does not make them right. Some people really did do terrible things, and deserved punishment. But some probably got scapegoated by the victors, which was pretty unfair. I don't think anyone was executed after WWII except for war crimes, which are well defined. Normal POWs who had been following legal orders were returned home after the war.

So? The world economy is odd and unstable.

Borrowing from the trust fund is a bad idea (IMO) but is hardly the fault of Social Security. Sounds like saying communism is a great notion, it just was never implemented properly. I'm sorry if the reality (average 7% annual return) doesn't support your personal rhetoric. It is, nonetheless, the actual average annual return of Social Security. Ah, so your tactic will be to repeat this claim over and over without actually supporting it. Check. www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html

Computer model successfully model the interior of stars and the dynamics of nuclear detonations, bird flocks and fish shoals. In a macro-sense I see no reason that economics should be immune.

In fairness, alt. just ripped it off from The Nation. It does seem to be a legitimate story.

What evidence? Panetta is only stating what he's been told, as he was not present at the time. Don't you lawyers have a word for that kind of "evidence"? Follow the bouncing ball - [B]PELOSI ADMITTED KNOWING ABOUT IT ON THURSDAY An admission is an evidentiary burning bush. She admitted it. Just like Dodd finally admitted to inserting the executive bonus language. Clearly we are at cross-purposes. My initial post related to post#26 this thread on the topic of Panetta and his statement. As far as your claim about her admitting it on Thursday, strange that yesterday she said “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” Kind of a strange admission, I'd say.

So that's what you think Gore did. OK.

What evidence? Panetta is only stating what he's been told, as he was not present at the time. Don't you lawyers have a word for that kind of "evidence"?

And Cheney waited how long to start slinging mud? 3 months?

This is the same Congress that said they were lied to about the Iraq war. That they weren't told. Yeah. They weren't told. They didn't know. They were lied to. You don't know what they were told, nor if it was accurate and complete, nor if they were informed that there was contrary intelligence.

We had a poll on partisanship and support of torture: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3468253#3468253 A few of our posters (rushmc, FallingOsh) claim waterboarding is not torture. I think it clearly IS torture. What do you think? (And no pussyfooting about whether or not the Red Cross is present making a difference.)

So now waterboarding has become "some water in the face". Redefining words doesn't work on this forum. Ok. I don't consider waterboarding torture. Waterboarding is water in the face, btw. Having your fingernails pulled out is a manicure, btw.