birdog1960

this is total bs. doesn't help the goal of evening out the drastic wealth disparity in this country one little bit. she's a whiner, plain and simple. she wants everything for nothing, no questions asked…and this plays right into a too often true stereotype. why shouldn't food purchases be restricted to healthy foods with foods likely to cost those paying the healthcare bills down the road even more being disallowed?. this is a p.o.s column.

me? no. norah jones when she wrote it? doubtful, but possible. that's actually pretty funny. aren't they known to occasionally have some biting cartoons? does dun ham's piece not seem cartoonish to you?

no. i get the point. it's not even an original idea. seems to me knock off of this : "Man Of The Hour" It's him or me that's what he saidBut I can't choose between a vegan and a pot head So I chose you because you're sweet And you give me lots of lovin' and you eat meat And that's how you became my only man of the hour You never lie and you don't cheat And you don't have any baggage tied to your forefeet Do I deserve to be the one who will feed you breakfast, lunch and dinner And take you to the park at dawn Will you really be my only man of the hour? I know you'll never bring me flowers Flowers they will only die And though you'll never take a shower together I know you'll never make me cry You never argue, you don't even talk And I like the way you let me lead you When we go outside and walk Will you really be my only man of the hour? My only man of the hour My only man of the hour which is much less inflammatory but perhaps not as funny. oh and btw, comedians have been doing inflammatory stuff forever. the trick is not crossing the line into what the paying audience sees as bad taste. in dun ham's case it really doesn't matter.

haven't read the link but from yall's comments, i have a pretty good idea as to it's substance i'm not particularly interested in what dunham does or says. i honestly don't know anyone who cares a fig about her. she's in an hbo show that pretends to be edgy but ends up being just pretentious. but you all seem very keen. strange that.

i listen to npr on my commute both ways. almost always "all things considered". if there's a particularly interesting piece, I read the transcript online and search for further info. turns out quite often, npr is the only major service doing a story that day on a particular subject so it's sometimes hard to get another reference point. i look at drudge for headlines but will almost always find a different link to the story especially if he's linked to breitbart or some other ridiculous source. fairly often watch pbs news especially when there's a supreme court ruling coming down. imo they have the most knowledgable and accessible legal analyst of all the networks. occasionally watch bbc world news. if i'm bored, i'll watch or listen to the talking heads debate. by far my favorite in this genre are shields and brooks.

sure i accept them. they are not relevant to the topic. but you already know this…kind of a cheap "trick".

clear as mud. further obfuscation. i know plenty of smart republicans and plenty of dumb dens. so what? the thread is about fox news. and the demographics of the viewers are not too positively distinguished. something else to be gleaned from the data in the link i provided: it's tougher to make it with shows aimed at the highly educated demographic. that's cuz there are less people in that group. only 29% of americans have completed college. is it any wonder that dumbed down fox does so well in simple ratings numbers and npr has a much smaller audience overall?

then you know that the same source you quoted (but in a study asking very different questions) shows poorer political knowledge scores, less educational attainment and less household income among those watching fox news shows that those watching/listening/reading what are generally considered liberal sources.

when you don't like the answer, change the question. the pew research poll answers the actual question posed and a lot more. check out the data on political knowledge and news audience.

more proof, as if any further is needed, that there are many stupid americans. it's as i suspect you would predict (scroll down a bit on the link): http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/. economist readers-64% college grads. fox news- 24%. npr - 54%

yeah, i get that but why is he campaigning for o'malley. he represents the thinking of a sizable chunk of the far right. is it really as simple as anyone but clinton or is he being more devious?

what's with drudge? http://www.drudgereport.com. it'll change but the headline again involves o'malley and "no more royals". shows a pic of george h bush weigh wsifw and son jeb and the clintons. almost like he really doesn't like jeb. wonder who he really wants to win. pretty certain it ain't o'malley.

another alternative: do what it takes to win.

an unpopular opinion in theses parts but i agree. he could have sold the team long ago to someone committed to keeping the team in buffalo while also committed to winning. while he did eventually accomplish the ultimate goal of the team staying, it resulted in many more years of bad football for an area starving for a winner. in the end, he was the owner of a professional football team that lost many more games than it won while making a great deal of money.

you mean global moral outrage over chained humans?

wow. honesty, it's such a lonely word…. we'd probably give them free cell phone and internet service and they'd be eternally grateful and it would be much cheaper than fighting them and we could even eventually make money off them. and we could spy on them more easily. http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/03/23/394276385/an-object-of-desire-hope-and-yearning-for-the-internet-in-cuba

so we're buying israel's passivity? how do you think that's working out?

mea culpa. mea maxima culpa. i retract that us support is a necessary condition. let's just say it's a highly desired condition by the israelis

it's not. let them sort it out themselves. it's what i've been saying from the start. we don't need to bwe complicit in their crimes.

it's not contradictory at all. i believe we are wasting money on israel. they'll fiond a way without our money to maintain their defense system. and we won't lose the influence that we clearly haven't bought.

and i don't. they're already pariahs. they would be globally hated if they outright murdered palestinians. it would be a stupid and immoral choice althouygh i doubt immorality would dissuade them.

pure conjecture. an "even more aggressive approach" might be counterproductive. there's no doubt they're between a rock and a hard place. it just doesn't seem a good idea to take clear sides in such a lose-lose dispute. i doubt much would change. we supposedly are paying for leverage on the peace process. that's clearly wasted money. perhaps israel would allocate more of their own wealth away from settlements and into their military.

they're "conflated" because one is a necessary condition for the other

no idea. it's the only alternative explanation i can muster for yall's dogged defense of the us' massive financial support for israel when so many of you cling to liberterian ideologies on virtually every other issue.

you asked how israel insulted the oiffice of the presidency. i answered. lets debate that before addressing your bizarre right wing nut allegation.