birdog1960

um, fox and the other networks salivate over PBS' demographics. but of, course it's only the right wingers that believe it's liberal biased (thus i can make this argument to them only). Personally, i think the newshour is the most balanced american tv news show. articulate, recognized experts from both sides giving their take but if you really want a look from the outside in, listen to/watch some foreign broadcasts like BBC. to me they seem much more PBS like than fox/ lumpy/ O'reilly or even olberman/colbert.

based on what? i don't think a majority of the voting public saw it that way....nor most of the political pundits. limpbaugh's moaning is the coup de grace: it confirms who got the better of the little cage match.

i really don't see the dem equivalent of rush out there. colbert? not nearly as influential. same for ed shultz (who just seems a buffoon). maddow? no , i'm convinced she's real and earnest, not a persona. but i'm interested to know who you think fits the bill.

agreed. but his on air persona appears to significantly influence the party...why doesn't that scare the crap out of party members? "yale and harvard and columbia and wellesley, or wherever these people go.... and he's the one complaing about the dems waging class warfare? charitably, i'll assume by "these people", he means smart people.

that's kind of a false choice: should i smoke or be obese? how about neither? at any rate, i quit about 10 years ago not knowing but suspecting (and hoping for) this data. maybe it's more meaningful for ex smokers to know that they have essentially reverted to the norm regarding life expectancy. but i think if i still smoked, this news would be inspiring.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/23/limbaugh_benghazi_hearing_was_cleansing_of_mrs_clintons_record.html the fat man's sad, bitter but slightly amusing take on the hearings (and you cons call the liberals envious?). it least he was able to discern the future political implications.

hmmm...you're either a smoker or you're not. there's no in between. there was a great line to this effect in "silence of the lambs"- can't quite get it though..

you may change your mind when you get middle aged.

http://www.baltimore...0,3430837.story how much would you sacrifice to live 10 years longer? smokers, is this enough to inspire you to quit?

well, yeah. that 1st page belongs on the enquirer not a serious newspaper such as the one i linked to. but hearing is believing. i'll bet the piece i heard is on the npr website. alternatively, check pbs for video of the hearings. she didn't sound like a mad woman to me, just forceful, authoritative and a bit pi$$ed off.

i think he was referring to your statement about concern by obama that hillary would "move more towards the center". on what issues do you think she'd move more right? i really can't see her doing it on any of his initiatives, least not health care.

it's not the public quotes that make much of a difference in regards to policy and legislation. it's the quiet, behind the scenes talk. unfortunately, that's where the really nasty stuff seems to be happening. i think the compliments were genuine however and credit was given where it was felt due. why shouldn't that be used as a presidential resume builder?

agree except that it was a successful exit for hillary...she showed that she won't be pushed around and has the goods to disarm grandstanding opponents. i think she helped herself yesterday if she truly has designs on the presidency. i can see those quotes from mccain and corker playing on tv ads.

she did. she took full responsibilty. i was referring to her handling of paul and the freshman senator johnson. i listened to the exchange on the radio this morning with him. sure sounded like a slap down to me.

guess yall missed the compliments from multiple republican legislators on a job well done as secretary of state. and an approval rating that just about every senator and congressman envies. yes, bengazi was a disaster but we're now coming to the realization that n africa is a terrorist breeding ground and a powder keg.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-in-benghazi-hearings-hillary-clinton-storms-capitol-hill/2013/01/23/a27e571e-65ac-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_print.html ladies and gentlemen; the next president of the united states.

i think it can be improved in several ways. my preference is to increase the minimum wage. yours, presumably, is to decrease hand outs. how bout both? but paying people less than they can reasonably live on without any health insurance after working a full work week is clearly part of the problem, in my view. changing minimum wage laws would very likely change the distribution of wealth in the country. there would still be very wealthy individuals, however. is that socialism? i don't think so but others will very likely disagree.

care to be more specific in your argument without the ad hominem? what would you do with the lazy? the intergenerational "takers" ?

we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things. we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path. or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements.

lol

"cigar, cigarette, tiparello?"

. "great ass...i mean, voice".

best comment i've seen on this: "maybe his thong got bunched up and he was trying to loosen it up"

i don't consider myself a socialist. my highest economic priorities when voting are for universal healthcare (canada has that and i don't think many would label it a socialist country), a living wage (like in that socialist hotbed, switzerland) , a safety net for the truly helpless (just about every first world country has one but lets use the uk for an example) and economic sustainability while providing these. alone or together, these don't necessarily imply socialism to me. do they to you? would huntsman support these? don't know but if he supports insurance mandates that implies supporting universal healthcare. on the others, i think he's at least center right which is a far cry from far right. but given what looks like integrity, he likely won't play to the far right ala romney and will therefore probably never get nominated. that's where i think the issue is with support for him on the left: a win for him signals a loss for the far right.