birdog1960

look it up..i heard google works well for that

i find it preferable to waterboarding.

you don't know yet you defend him from a pie in the face? i'd have had no problem with clinton getting a pie in the face for several of his transgressions (only after leaving the presidency so as to not disrespect the office).

um...besides the transgressions that caused him to be dragged in front of parliament? how bout the ones that have prompted an inquiry in the US. and i suppose you could call it really bad taste rather than a transgression, but there's the whole fox thing and his employing of so many propagandists.

it's becoming more obvious by the minute that this man and his empire have slapped much of western civilization in the face repeatedly for many decades and yet you find it reprehensible that someone mashes foam in his face? seems that the scale of things is a bit distorted.

presumably he's young enough to please her. one would assume he could take a pie to the face

the chinese are apparently hero worshiping murdoch's wife for slapping the pie guy....now that's a strange culture and so foreign to most of us that it's difficult to understand. that said, just had a short conversation about it with a drug rep who said "good for her" so i guess it's not just the chinese. doesn't the guy deserve at least a pie in the face? lord knows precious little more punishment will be metered out by the legal system.

esquire did a little blurb on what to do in various cities in this months issue. for Buffalo they recommended checking out the architecture of city hall and especially the elevators there.

write it off any way you want...and you may be correct but as sensationalist as drudge normally is, don't you find it surprising or even suspicious that he doesn't link to it. no agenda there. just solid, unbiased, accurate fact reporting. just like fox. it takes a lot of effort to bring the sheep around to supporting policies that are actually against their best interests.

moron, idiot...i don't thinks the words have ever been more appropriately applied in these forums.

i have no problem with catching and punishing cheaters but the biggest return on investment for enforcement efforts comes from going after big cheaters. you could add up all the poor cheaters take over the last decade and come no where near what the take of the cheaters at bear stearns, countrywide, citibank, merril and even folks with jumbo motgages they couldn't afford have cost us. wrong is wrong, rich or poor.

while drudge is linking to a foaming incident, there is a conspicuous absence of any link to the death of 40 something whistleblower sean hoare. coincidence that he dies unexpectedly in his home shortly after outing news of the world. maybe...at least british law enforcement says so. and we all now how trustworthy they've been in this mess.

it almost makes you nostalgic for the good ole days of rockefeller republican dominance...

aint gonna happen the golden rule is alive and well in the US of A. those with the gold rule.

maybe because those tax policies with historically low tax rates for high wealth individuals (similar to those before the depression) aren't working and actually slowing the economy. as blodget points out, it's eerily similar to the conditions in place before the great depression.

no mention of the years we were discussing. goes back only to 2002. and ,OMG, the top 10% pays 70% of taxes!! gasp! but what % of wealth do they hold? if you looked at Blodget's conclusion, i would think i underemphasized his points rather than cherry picking.

yeah, henry blodget is a prototypical socialist.

it's (sic)

posted a link last week in the "who raised taxes...regan (sic)" thread. see post #37 "the truth about taxes" from business insider. look though the tables linked to the article.

yup. and history shows that the economy is likely to improve, the middle class will be strengthened, the deficit will decrease and the wealthy will continue to invest and endeavor to get richer despite these rates. the author of this piece throws entire decades of history aside in the short 3rd from last paragraph with a very weak argument but i'm sure it will suffice for those who want to believe it.

true but for those with less than 4 years, especially rookies, it will be difficult for agents to justify the percentages that they currently demand. they may not play near as big a role as they currently do considering that the NFL average career is less than 4 years.

i'm thinking this is bad news for agents (which is good news for everyone else). is there any need for them anymore?

thanks, wnyguy. i have at times let my evil twin side loose...it's just not done here in the south but it seems entirely appropriate on this forum. when in rome...

yes, we would like to disperse you into shadow energy, arrogantly or not.