Yea why did that become the reason ...
BTW the ones who have been bashing me for posting anti republican content dont suddenly start supporting me ... I am equally against both the clowns ... just that the first set of 1/2 truths came from the repu"buick"ans ... This new lie seem to be comming from the peoples's perception more than democrats directly, but its a deep rooted thought that I wanted to get to its bottom.
Cool.
Buddha.
:dunno_white:
Why?
OK I'll take a first guess ...
Repu"buick"ans obviously they have to buy their Buicks ... OK that helps the economy, but then of course many of them own their Buicks, its a requirement for being a repu"buick"an.
So Now they buy builck parts to replace those that fall off, but that is much smaller than the gasoline they have to buy to fill up the Buick, that all is money out of the economy.
There fore buick's are evil, and grampa driving a 1978 Buick roadmaster is killing the economy. So ... repu"buick"ans are wrecking the economy.
Good ... no ... OK ...
Cool.
Buddha.
:cookoo: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:thumb:
hte liberals will answer without answering directly :flipoff: :flipoff: :laugh:
how may one answer a question that is so poorly put?
Why you little ...
Its somehow thrown about as fact ... like the sun rises in the east, the water in the ocean is salty, and liberals are good for the economy ... WTF ... how did we get there from here ...
OK I can say 1 thing ... The claim that McCain makes is that Obama will tax you but keep spending up, he will cut spending. In the time of the great depression the main catalyst for the economy retsrting was that the govt cranked out a lot of public works projects. Now potentially the keeping up spending can do that, however in this narrow sense of the definition I like McCain idea a bit more.
Why - the perverse argument in my head is this.
He will cut spending, and that will kill seriously bad and useless projects as well as plunge the economy into depression. We let that sit there for 2-3-6 months. Then the govt can start good, well planned and needed projects and that can be done at a lower cost basis than it could have been otherwise (as in McCain supporting his rich buddies and killing the wages of the workers) ... however what it will do is to re energise the economy in the time that these are nearing completion and it will build a real new economy. Not just one that is created by working govt stooges.
Something like The (McCain) govt pays the guy a minimum wage to dig a ditch, the cable companies use the ditch and they pay for it say 10K or so over 3-5 years to run cable to a underserved area. Then that area has a software development company come up because they have a high speed connection to the rest of the world. Crude example. But everyone is happy, govt for its $ back, the ditch guy either now works at the software company or digs extra ditches to help them do this or that ... etc etc ...
Obama will pay the ditch digger 100,000 a year. That dude will dig the ditch, but the cable company now will refuse to drop the cable in there cos its 100K, they say, its gonna take us 25 years to get the $ back. So screw you. So Obama has created a sudden short term growth totally dependent on the govt. Again bad example.
But these 2 would be interpreted as, Obama/Liberals is good for the economy and McCain/Republicans are not ... Is that actually a good example of what happens ? can anyone tell me.
I think any artificial inflating back the dead economy which is almost what the idiot liberals - F^&k I want to hit Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with a train will just be very very short term and literally money down the drain. BTW Illegals will take all of it and send it off to mexico. So the ripple effect stops with 1 ripple.
Cool.
Buddha.
wow it has been a long time since i read a post that inaccurate and well stupid. i am disappointed. to try and answer what you have written is pretty hard to do because it is just so inaccurate and does not make sense. either republican or Democrat what you have written is just pulled out of the sky. try and research and rewrite the post. as written it is gibberish from a political and economic stand point.
sorry but that is how i feel.
Frankieg - Its just a hypothetical scenario I made up.
The general theory that has been thrown about is that liberals are good for the economy ... how and why that's all I am asking.
I just made up that ... and I made it up as 1 way McCain will be good long term but be seen as bad in the near term ... just made up.
Cool.
Buddha.
ok but i just can't answer this hypothetical scenario since it really is nonsensical , not to be mean but that is how i see it.
OK frankieG ... simply put ...
All the surveys and what not seem to indicate that Liberals will be good for the economy.
What is that based on. That is all my question is.
Cool.
Buddha.
All those surveys come from the perspective that W has hosed the economy so badly that clearly any plan the Republicans can put forth will clearly be terrible and plunge us further into the ecomomic abyss we are already tumbling into. Raising taxes for anyone is not going to help- people can't afford to buy food- do they need the government going into their pockets for more taxes? I know Obama says he's just gonna raise taxes on people who make over 250k. Who are those people? For the most part they are employers- and though trickle down economics is a pretty proven failure in the grand scheme of things on a smaller level it is the way things work.
Right now, in Oregon the car buisness is so bad that dealers are laying off people that are paid solely on commission because they just aren't making enough to pay for the benefits. If you work construction and all of the sudden the government decides to take more money in taxes if you break a $250k threshold it will provide small employers lot's of incentive to stay below that cap and maybe not employ so many people. That said- it's pretty clear if you cut taxes for the rich like the Republicans always want to do, thinking those rich employers are then gonna give pay raises or hire more people is laughable. These people got rich by keeping as much of their money to themselves as they could and using every tax loophole their attorney/accountant could find anthey were helped my some pretty awful economic policy in the last 10 years.
To me they are both terribly flawed tax models and the reason liberals now have the mantle of "economic saviors" is because W couldn't find an economic policy that worked if he had a map, flashlight, and a Sherpa leading the way.
Flat tax FTW.
Consumption based tax ... is that what you meant by flat tax ?
That is likely to create a underground market of sorts.
Something like this. Crap comes in from China, at the point it gets into the port its taxed. If not, the whole system will be worse ... I'll explain that too in a sec.
Then it goes to walmart, where it will be taxed at retail sale. However a container full can be bought by say, me, and I'll walk around the streets with my coat pockets filled with goodies. Then anyone that wants goodies, I'll just sell them ... cash, no receipt, no tax. You go to walmart it is 25% more and you get a nice shiny peice of paper ... if you buy from the ghetto its 25% less. Yea walmart = double taxation. So everyone should buy from me. Or buy american made stuff which will get to stores (or me) all pretax. AKA stimulate the economy.
If these were not taxed at entry, it will just make it worse. The govt will not get any tax on my sales ...
However the ghetto shoppers will be buying little things and that is a tax break for ghetto shoppers (aka poor people) as well as people who buy used big things (cars, bikes etc) again poor people.
Maybe its OK its a tax break at consumption level depending on your level of consumption and its very in favor of the poor. However the govt will get gypped off a lot of $$$ ...
I actually love that system for another reason. No freaking tax refund filing every damn april. Or in my case october. What do we do with all the H&R blockhead types.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on November 04, 2008, 11:08:43 AM
What do we do with all the H&R blockhead types.
Cool.
Buddha.
:dunno_white:
:icon_twisted:
:2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns:
Hey I need a really ghetto GS
No, by flat tax I mean an income tax that is the same for everyone regardless of how much you make excepting the extremely poor- so for an example the Feds take a flat 20% of what you make. period. No deductions, no accountants finding loopholes so the rich pay less- everyone pays whatever percent. No special incentives for anyone. That way the middle class is paying the same percent as the wealthy and it is fair. Of course that will happen right about the same time we have a balanced federal budget that actually produces a surplus to start getting rid of the national debt.
i like the idea of a flat tax as well. this way the rich do actually pay more than the poor but it is all within proportion to what you make. making it fair for eveyrone. but even with this idea, the rich can still claim so many deductions. everything is a business expense, etd that they end up paying less in proportion to their income. our entire tax code needs revised. a flat tax across the board. no deductions. etc. although i have to say with the earned income credit and child tax credits the last two years i have gotten back more than i've payed in. :dunno_white:
Well, Obama has been running his mouth about change for a long time- of course he never said it will be change for the better...I think it will be business as usual. Nothing ever changes.
+ 1 Oh damn, i agree with you again? :laugh: :laugh:
every time he says change i rummage through my pockets. weird Eh?. but hey hes in, it may be a bumpy ride. im ready for what ever may or may not happen. no one knows cept him and god . so like i said, im ready. hell if it gets bad enough ill go to canada, or over tofamily home in the uk ( but that is a last resort though. meh ill just deal with it lmao O0
thank got no more bush, bush cheney crap, republican crap, republican evil. the next four years will be better than any our country has seen at least in my life time of 45 years.
yeah and liberals are perfect godly types Eh? who never do anythign wrong [/sarcasm]
we are angles :) seriously though name a liberal/dem who stated a war, lied to congress, wiped their ass with the constitution, imprisoned thousands with no rights....hrm i can't think of any. bush/cheney/reps are SOOO bad that they even screwed mccain. this is not just a win it is a landslide victory. god i am going to be impossible to live with the next eight years lol.
Quote from: frankieG on November 05, 2008, 03:56:53 AM
we are angles :) seriously though name a liberal/dem who stated a war, lied to congress, wiped their ass with the constitution, imprisoned thousands with no rights....hrm i can't think of any. bush/cheney/reps are SOOO bad that they even screwed mccain. this is not just a win it is a landslide victory. god i am going to be impossible to live with the next eight years lol.
bill clinton, somalia, bosnia lets see. hmm i know there are others
your ignorance is showing. i served and faught in somalia and bosnia, somalia was a UN mission and Bosnia was a NATO mission. to this day no one says, at least intelligent people, that we should not have been in somalia or bosnia. two are only mentioned, vietnam and iraq.
f%$k OFF (edited out of respect and because i wont lower my intelligence to name calling). somalia wwe were there bosnia was painted over us warplanes play thre f%$king audio
Quote from: frankieG on November 05, 2008, 04:18:27 AM
your ignorance is showing. i served and faught in somalia and bosnia, somalia was a UN mission and Bosnia was a NATO mission. to this day no one says, at least intelligent people, that we should not have been in somalia or bosnia. two are only mentioned, vietnam and iraq.
yeah you fought everyhwere. and the liberals lost vietnam for us and are trying to do so in iraq. ido NOT appreciate the name calling at all. ive had it i am done here. take care
whoa someone is a sore loser lol..language young man :) :cookoo:
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on November 05, 2008, 02:07:31 AM
every time he says change i rummage through my pockets. weird Eh?. but hey hes in, it may be a bumpy ride. im ready for what ever may or may not happen. no one knows cept him and god . so like i said, im ready. hell if it gets bad enough ill go to canada, or over tofamily home in the uk ( but that is a last resort though. meh ill just deal with it lmao O0
When you rummage in your pockets, have you found Obama's hand in there yet? it will be soon- no doubt! :nono:
(http://www.hdwt.net/cleaning-coins/cleaning-coins-6.jpg)
Quote from: frankieG on November 05, 2008, 04:18:27 AM
your ignorance is showing. i served and faught in somalia and bosnia, somalia was a UN mission and Bosnia was a NATO mission. to this day no one says, at least intelligent people, that we should not have been in somalia or bosnia. two are only mentioned, vietnam and iraq.
Yeah but both places are so much better off now right? We sent in troops long enough to figure out there wasn't any oil and then bailed- and those countries are back where they were before. No disrespect to your service record- but those 2 conflicts really accomplished very little in the long term and the UN is basically pointless at this point.
Also I'd like someone to explain how a 4% win in the popular vote equals a landslide? 4% of anything is pretty small- the electoral college is retarded and I just don't get why the
people don't get to have their voice truly heard for president. I mean in Oregon a republican presidental candidate hasn't won squat here in 25 years or more- so basically republicans here have no voice. Seems like we could go straight up popular vote at this point.
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on November 05, 2008, 04:10:44 AM
bill clinton, somalia, bosnia lets see. hmm i know there are others
Yama, you have been drinking the Republican cool-aid again. Who got us into Somalia - George Herbert Walker Bush. Why? hard to be sure, but given the timing (right after he lost the election), probably because he wanted to leave a mess that would be embarrassing for Bill Clinton. If that involved killing some of our troops, he didn't seem to care much. I seriously doubt he did it for the Somalis' benefit.
W, following in daddy's footsteps, is no doubt trying to figure out what new dumb-ass thing he can do in the next two months to make a bigger mess than he already has for Obama to clean up, and he won't care what that does to troops or country, either.
As for the question of the topic - centrists that Fox "news" thinks are liberals are good for the economy because they are not deluded idiots who think that borrowing from the Chinese to buy crap from China is better than facing the facts. And that's without even getting into their hypocritical social views...
FDR was a democrat and unquestionably he was the sole President responsible for getting us into WWII, Truman was a democrat and responsible for Korea, Johnson got us into Vietnam and many argue that Jackie-boys lack of action neccesitated that move so there's two democrats responsible for that one.
AND......it was under the Carter administration that we started supplying rebellions (ahem...afghanistan) with weapons to fight their wars............if we hadn't given the weapons to OBL, nature would have taken it's course and Russia would have over-run Afghanistan decades ago and we would have been save a very costly war.
and had they let Patton crush russia long ago things might be different there too. :icon_mrgreen:
Quote from: The Buddha on November 03, 2008, 08:55:44 AM
Its somehow thrown about as fact ... like the sun rises in the east, the water in the ocean is salty, and liberals are good for the economy ... WTF ... how did we get there from here ...
Have you been paying attention the last 8 years? The repubs have ruined EVERYTHING they touch: taxes, education, environment, civil liberties, war in iraq, war in afghan, and the economy.
They have royally f%&ked UP the economy. I'm hearing things like "the greatest economic disaster since the great depression". HAHA Stupid republicans.
The less repubs in Fed gov't the happier I am..
Quote from: frankieG on November 05, 2008, 04:18:27 AM
your ignorance is showing. i served and faught in somalia and bosnia, somalia was a UN mission and Bosnia was a NATO mission. to this day no one says, at least intelligent people, that we should not have been in somalia or bosnia. two are only mentioned, vietnam and iraq.
haha. I love it. yama is such a staunch republican. It's great. You could tell him GWB eats babies for breakfast and he would find a way to defend it.
Of course I KNEW he would mention Bill Clinton. When Bill Clinton lied he was f%$king Monica L. When GWB lied he was f%$king the entire nation. LOL!
FYI, Clinton started the economic deregulation. :dunno_white:
There are many people to blame for our current economy. But, only one group of people that can make it right: Us Americans.
SPC, Don't forget WWI and Pres. Wilson.
Yep, Plenty of wars started by Dems.
This Isn't getting us anywhere though.
eMouse is right. It's up to all of us to get thru this. I'm willing to give Obama the chance to do a great job. That way we all win.
I don't agree with him on ideology but our system works much better than the system in place where I grew up.
I grew up in Guatemala, I was there from 1964 to 1976. Went thru two periods of martial law with the military taking over the government.
That sucked big time.
We got it good here. :thumb:
Besafe
Quote from: tussey on November 05, 2008, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: frankieG on November 05, 2008, 04:18:27 AM
your ignorance is showing. i served and faught in somalia and bosnia, somalia was a UN mission and Bosnia was a NATO mission. to this day no one says, at least intelligent people, that we should not have been in somalia or bosnia. two are only mentioned, vietnam and iraq.
haha. I love it. yama is such a staunch republican. It's great. You could tell him GWB eats babies for breakfast and he would find a way to defend it.
Of course I KNEW he would mention Bill Clinton. When Bill Clinton lied he was f%$king Monica L. When GWB lied he was f%$king the entire nation. LOL!
tussey. you know i hate labels, dont be like frankie and throw labels when you dont know. any of it. BUT ill give you partial credit. unlike many liberals, notice i said many, not all)anyhoo partial credit, i am Staunch. but not a republican. this year yeah i voted repub for pres, demo for state congress. i voted mostly 50/50 im staunch, but not republican, kinda like someone being a democrat but not liberal. yeah there are such tings. any hoo i ocnsider myself a saunch conservative. but my political views are more independant than either demican or republicrat. barring that court thing, if it passes and there is nothing to go on. ill support teh pres to be. i mean w e only have to deal with him for 4 years ( minimum)
See I am also an independent (don't vote in primaries here in OR) but tend to lean conservative. Where I fly away from the Republicans is with all of the religious angles and justifications for their policies, and where I differ from Democrats is with their idea that every single person should be able to have the government hold their hand and make everything better, and all the people who worked hard for what they have can pay for that BS with increased taxes. Especially since they do a horrific job spending the taxes they already collect, but constantly refuse to streamline government so naturally raising taxes is the answer. Republicans aren't off the hook either- they do the same crap, except their projects are for multi-billion dollar weapons systems that have no real use in urban guerrilla warfare, for a war we shouldn't even be in- and instead of raising taxes, they cut taxes for the rich and let the deficit balloon so they can almost say with a straight face "see, I told you I would cut taxes" and they did- just not for you, for their rich constituents. Our system is so broken no president is going to fix anything in the next decade.
BTW, last night I went to sleep in a 2 party state, and woke up in a one party state. Democrats now hold every marble there is in Oregon- They have a super majority in the state house, senate, the Governor, Sec. of State, Attorney General, and Treasurer. On top of that in an incredibly close race our 12 year republican senator was ousted for a Democrat empty suit who is basically a free vote for the democratic party in Washington. I mean they took care of all his mudslinging ads for him, and basically ran on the "Republicans enjoy killing kittens and playing Yahtzee with W so vote for Merkley" A state senator who has done little more than jack taxes at every opportunity while accomplishing nothing for the state. It's nice to see the opinions of Oregon are based solely on the Portland Metro area. Look at this map: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/
God damn I hate politics...
i may have been a bit off when i was comparing Iraq to Vietnam. so far, in gross numbers, we have 33,000 wounded in Vietnam it was around 150,000. quite a difference....i guess i should have checked my numbers first.
Vietnam
Country Branch of service Number served Killed Wounded Missing
USA[2] Army 4,368,000 38,218 96,802 617 {A}
Marines 794,000 14,840 51,392 242{B}
Navy 1,842,000 2,565 4,178 401{C}
Air Force 1,740,000 2,587 1,021 649 {D}
Coast Guard 7 59 0 {E}
Civilians 38 {F}
Total 8,744,000 58,217 153,452 1,947
Iraq
4,119 dead as of July 15th 2008. As of March 2008 there were 8,914 wounded requiring medical air transport. 20,416 wounded did not require medical air transport. Of all the wounded 13,109 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. Medical air transport was required for an additional 8,273 for non-hostile injuries, and for 23,052 for diseases or other medical conditions. [59][60][61][62][63]
Perspective is a good thing. You can include Both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, and anything else in the Middle East over the next 10 years as the same war and I doubt it will compare to Vietnam. You could combine every war since WWII and it will not compare to WWII.
Looking at the WWII numbers will really put modern wars into perspective, especially if you look at the death toll from other countries.
i don't think a world war can compare to our modern wars. they are two completely different entities. one is a complete mobilization of the first world in conflict with each other. no country is left untouched either directly or indirectly. the economic machines of all the great nations is 100% geared to the war effort and all else comes second. we do not see that in the modern say mini wars we have now. there is no draft, no complete mobilization, may of the g-8 countries are not in this. the only superpowers involved are us the USA and Britain. the rest a minor countries. to truly have a full mobilization we would need NATO and all the G-8 countries involved. thank god we are not there, or even close. but back to the question why are liberals good for the economy? because we are not set on world domination, fighting battles which are not ours to fight, we don't demand increased security and spend money on policing and military that may be better spent at home in America.
There might be another world war- give China and N. Korea a chance!
1. Most people don't ask which candidate is better for the economy, but which candidate is better for their wallet. People care less about GDP than they do their own bank accounts. Yes, the two are related, but they are not the same. Clinton was better for the average worker's bank account than Bush.
2. The average voter believes liberals are better for the economy in this election because the economy has done terrible things under Bush. McCain subscribes to Bush's pre-9/11, small government philosophy. Obama has sold himself as a change candidate (without getting too specific) and people think the current system needs to be changed. (As a huge aside, Bush didn't continue his small government program mainly due to war and surveillance spending, but he did offer weak enforcement of environmental standards, and reduced government oversight in general. Also, there is a chance that Bush's original small government strategy would have worked had he been more competent. The small government ethos didn't get a fair trial because of Bush's mismanagement in my opinion.)
3. For GDP info and an idea of which party has historically been better for the economy, see the chart in this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/
4. A minority of voters see Obama as a move back to a more progressive tax structure, and more government oversight, at least with institutions that are considered too precious to fail. Some believe that the philosophy of low taxes at all costs (prevalent since Reagan) is unsustainable since it has led to worse schools, crumbling infrastructure, etc...
We shall see the liberals wna tmore, but they as others in govt. dont spend wisely. ( ALL, including conservatives), the liberals plans would work, if we could get rid of teh waste. from ALL sides, and spend wisely. not spend more= tax more=spend more=tax more. that only works fo rso long then theres teh mythical ceiling where it all stops :dunno_white:
Quote from: frankieG on November 07, 2008, 03:32:55 AM
i don't think a world war can compare to our modern wars. they are two completely different entities. one is a complete mobilization of the first world in conflict with each other. no country is left untouched either directly or indirectly. the economic machines of all the great nations is 100% geared to the war effort and all else comes second. we do not see that in the modern say mini wars we have now. there is no draft, no complete mobilization, may of the g-8 countries are not in this. the only superpowers involved are us the USA and Britain. the rest a minor countries. to truly have a full mobilization we would need NATO and all the G-8 countries involved. thank god we are not there, or even close. but back to the question why are liberals good for the economy? because we are not set on world domination, fighting battles which are not ours to fight, we don't demand increased security and spend money on policing and military that may be better spent at home in America.
lol i hear almost teh exact same hting on LW radio, for the past 4 years or so. got anyhting new?
There are still LW radio stations? I thought they all went out of business a while ago because nobody listens to that garbage....
Quote from: bikejunkie223 on November 08, 2008, 08:18:25 AM
There are still LW radio stations? I thought they all went out of business a while ago because nobody listens to that garbage....
google fairness doctrine aka censorship. :dunno_white:
air america...i listen to it pretty much daily. but i also watch the o'reily factor.
Quote from: frankieG on November 09, 2008, 08:52:18 AM
air america...i listen to it pretty much daily. but i also watch the o'reily factor.
yeah air america. look up its ratings. its why the"fairness doctrine" will be tantamount to censorship. air americas ratings are quite low. not as bad as congtresses, but stll. a station will not pick up a low rating show. frankie, you of all people should know that. forcing them to do it. will shut them down. them, ebing ALL. including liberal shows. a station owner will not carry a show from his or her ownpocket. if a sponsor will not pay in because of a cerain show then they leave. if more do that, tehn station goes under. i watch the o'reilly factor as well. and listen to. ( on sunday nights ( a lib show called " beyond the beltway". i listen to them all. but for a ong time all tehy did, like congress, was Buddha Loves You about bush. instead of trying to do something.
Liberals are good for the economy because gun owners are stimulating economic growth. Attendance numbers from this weekends gun show was 35,000 paid admissions. I personally spent about $300.
Picked up another stripped lower for another AR build, the wife wants a M4 now. Got a quad rail forend for my M4, and just beacuse theyr're so fricken cool I bought a wepons mounted green laser sight. Can you say follow the bouncing dot, and I found a guy selling Mil Surp 30rd Mags for $6.50 a piece so I picked up a dozen and I traded a little single shot .410 for a good set of cold steel hunting knives, my wife said my knife wasn't big enough to field dress a dear.
I read in the paper over the weekend that the gun stores here in Oregon are doing record business and likely will at least until Jan 20. I wish I had some cash to snag an AR before then.
as far as i know air America does not get any government funding. i have been a contributor both on air and financially to air america. i like o'reilly because you just don't know what he is going to say. at times he is very articulate and presents very good argument for the topic on hand. then as we Irish tend to, gets pissed off and the rant flies :) i watch fox just so i know what the right is on about and to see what fake news looks like. i watched fox over election night/day and they were beside themselves on what to do or say. they did come to the aid of sarah paulin. other than that they were just useless.
No air america's not publicly funded, they went bankrupt last year abd got bought by green media, their market share is in the tank and it's programming is only carried in 65 media markets as of last available numbers, they have lost something like 66 affiliates since their introduction, of course it's not fair that no one want's to listen to their drivel.
Oooooooh my favorite subject, fairness.....LIFES NOT FAIR GET OVER IT!!!!!!!
If life was fair the government would have sent the furnace contractor out to service my furnace today, that cost $550 to get it fixed, I guess I coulda sat around and whined until some charity offered to pay for it and spent my christmas money on christmas instead of my furnace.
Quote from: frankieG on November 10, 2008, 08:02:26 AM
as far as i know air America does not get any government funding. i have been a contributor both on air and financially to air america. i like o'reilly because you just don't know what he is going to say. at times he is very articulate and presents very good argument for the topic on hand. then as we Irish tend to, gets pissed off and the rant flies :) i watch fox just so i know what the right is on about and to see what fake news looks like. i watched fox over election night/day and they were beside themselves on what to do or say. they did come to the aid of sarah paulin. other than that they were just useless.
funny same reasons why i listen to the liberal news networks lol :cheers:
more to be outraged at i suppose. damn greedy bastards. good for the economy my ass. :mad:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown