Take it from a Massachusett's resident. This guy will say anything, and do anything to get elected to office. He will be your best buddy one moment, and then turn on you, if someone offers him a better deal, the next. He's not a mercenary, as any form of payment will be accepted, so long as its better then the previous form of payment: money, presidental office, women, divine status, etc. That makes him just dangerous.

Shouldn't be surprising, that not only the health care industry 'bought him', but that that he was saying alot of this garbage on Fox News. Yes, a 'news' station know for reporting the 'facts' and 'evidence', without bias or opinion.

Isn't the defination for 'Hypocrite', "What Republicans do, and hope no one looks up history." ?

Yes, all these Republicans are 'for the children' when it suits their political agenda. Now, given the 28 million children, under the age of 19, do not have any health insurance or coverage of any type. Why, are these same Republicans, against health care for children? *OR* The care takers (whether they be parents or legal guardians) who make sure they get to school, stay out of trouble & drugs, grow up healthy?

If they are so 'concern' for the welfare of those in their state, why not the actual health and ability to seek care from medical doctors? Dentists? Therapists?

After all, how many people, suffering from say, depression, have access to firearms? But not a medical doctor who could diagnois their mental health?

I think these are fair and reasonable questions to ask these Republicans, who seem 'so' 'concern' for the 'welfare of children'.

1) Leave Air to Land bombardment to the US Air Force.

2) Poor sportsmanship on the part of a few US Army guys.

3) Use of a military vehicle for recreational use.

4) Spending the tax-payer's money on something immature. That's right, here's one example of how the US Military spends our $540 billion dollars (2010 figure).

Its funny that they try to get Mr. Weiner to be against the health care bill on the grounds, that it doesn't have a govermnt paid option, and he wants one in the final bill. And as the Congressmen stated, rightly so, no one ever gets the bill they want, and must compromise on things. Its a give and take relationship. Unfortunately, Republicans are only a 'take' group. You find a Republican who gives, to others or something, that doesn't just boost his ego, fame, or pocketbook, and you'll just made world history.

It is funny that he makes points, and they can't counter him directly. He calls them, and their friends, LAIRS (ok, Liars) to their face. And they don't even try to defend themselves. They KNOW they have lied, and on several issues.

Fox News....

...For people to dumb and gullible to use that lump, three feet above their butt.

Yeah, cus we see how well the free market is currently handling the problem. None of you were around during the days of steel towns, and the railroad baronies. Where a town was effectively controlled by the Company. From cradle to grave, you were essentially, a slave. The Company owned EVERYTHING, including the 'police'. They typically used fear as a weapon to keep workers in-line, un-unionized, and unable to protest for better wages and working conditions.

Its really to bad, so many Americans don't know their American history.

I hate to be the one to bust your chops, Blankfist...

Taking the $30 Billion recovered from lending the big banks to smaller banks, is a sound decision. Since large banks are able to dispense more credit, smaller banks are not at the ability to do so. This makes the big banks, bigger, and smaller banks, smaller. That's less competition. So, but investing in smaller banks, the ability to issue credit, would mean more possible growth for businesses. Check out the Small Business Admin (sba.gov) for more information.

Keith,

I really wish your father better health, even against the odds of now. I prayed, even though, you will never know I did. Have strength, have heart, have compassion. Some have gone through this, and others still long down the road. But all of us, will give a shoulder to cry on, if you need it.

Nith

Rather slick ad. I've seen ads like this, but mostly from conservative groups with an obvious slant and bias. This ad simply is showing what can be found out of the Goverment Account Office (GAO). It seems the liberals have been hard at work, while conservatives were to busy being children. But then, the last democrat in the office of the President, also did alot of good on the domestic front too. The various bills initially were unpopular, but indeed saved things from going REALLY south on the economy. Better a recession then a depression. Right?

Its honestly a shame, to many Americans (ironically among conservatives) do not understand economics on a macro level. We can sit around, and belly ache at how the Republican party landed us in so much debt due to wars and simply foolish handingly of federal assets and expenses. Or we could work with democrats to get the budget and deficit down. Republicans claim 'fiscal conservative', while the President and members of Congress are for 'fiscal responsibility'. Mr. Obama has a good, solid frame work that just needs fleshed out. Its rather disappointing Republicans behave rather immaturely on such an important issue.

To help you understand better, NinjaInHeat, on American politics, just think on this. The concept of a conservative/liberal agenda news agency did not emerge until Fox News turned from 'journalistic quality' in the early 90's to sensational news coverage. Basically, that 'news' agency started to embrace more weird things and not so much stable ideas. During that time, it was not leaning to one or the other side of the political spectrum. With the 'election' of George W. Bush, the owner of Fox News started to switch it from 'neutral' to 'conservative' journalism. During the first couple of years, pass 2000, more and more Americans started to hear of differences between Fox News an all others.

They called it 'the elite media' or 'leftist media'. In an effort to undermine good journalism in favor of their style of journalism. Journalists/reporters were often charged with the task of reporting the news, as it happened, and allow the audience to form their opinions. They would show facts and evidence, and would stay away from opinionated journalism. Think 'Walter Conkrite'. So, Fox News, turned to having a political 'bent' on news reporting. They often tried to put the Republican President, Mr. George W. Bush in the best possible light. Anyone who remains neutral on the subject would point out, that, it undermines good journalism. They were the last ones to report about events in several spots (i.e. Gitmo), and did try to spin the knowledge of an event in the most favorible manner towards the Republican president and Congress (which until 2006, was controlled by the Republican party).

During this timeline, radio, in an effort to draw more listeners, started to bend towards conservative politics. Radio was getting heavily hammered thanks to the Internet, and needed a gimmick to draw more listeners to its site. Largely to get people to buy products and services the radio stations aired on ads.

Conservative radio, actually changed how Fox News 'reported' information. On talk radio, often the host would try to keep the tone and mood of any discussion on subjects that would anger its listeners. Making callers respond in angered voices. As anyone who has studied psychology will understand. Someone who talks in a calm, rational tone, generally can think and be reasoned with. When someone is beyond angry, their ability to think rationally is severally if not, totally, eliminated. Hence were the concept of 'blind rage' comes from. The Frontal Lobe of the human brain shuts down.

So, back to Fox News, and your question. Any news source that doesn't blindly agree with Fox News or conservative talk radio, is, to those people, liberal media. Whether the media is actually liberal bias or not, is irrelavent. So, for example, CNN (i.e. cnn.com) is considered liberal. The BCC, in England, is liberal. The Washington Times (or is the Post?), is liberal. The Boston Globe, is liberal. Newsweek, Money, and even Forbes, is liberal. Generally, any publication that questions Republicans, is automatically liberal. Conservative media will not show things, that hinder its philosophy or show moderates/liberals in a positive tone.

/end neutral bias

I've seen alot of news coverage by Fox News on the sift here, showing how they undermine good jounalism in favor of the latest spin to keep Republicans out of scrutiny. I'm sure many of the people here could post links of some of the more amusing moments in which Fox News, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, or even Rush Limbaugh tries to change the facts to place conservatives/Republicans in to the best possible light. And, to lump moderates as liberals. Then, to show liberals/Democrats in the worst possible light.

Honestly, to understand American politics, one needs to listen to all possible sides on a given piece of information or event. Use, 'critical thinking skills', wisdom, and reason, to figure out what the reason information and facts are, THEN, decide on how to accept that information. For most conservatives, and some liberals, that's way to much effort to expect to take in.

Hate to be the one to say it. Those security guards were actually following company policy. To observe and contact law enforcement, but not to step in the way or be a participant. To that, those individuals followed it to the letter. The tape is damning for the company. I think the mother will have lawyers calling her to get in on the lawsuit. That's an easy few million, if not tens of million. It can also be criminal negilence on the part of the security guards.

The problem with policy in a business is, unless the person puts common sense in to the equation, it has no hope of working. If I was there, either as a passer-by or guard, I would step in the way, and shove the attacker away.

Actually, alot of the Climatalogists hold goverment and tenure with academic institutions. Ever tried firing or removing someone from a goverment job, because of a change in the wind? (yeah, pun intended) A professor with tenure gives them more freedom to study and explain in their field. Now, those scientists that work for gas & oil companies, WILL, get fired if they say something that is NOT in the company's best interests. Its kinda of like the medical doctors that worked for tobacco companies in the 40-70's. They KNEW, smoking was bad, and how bad it was in every detail, and yet, they hide that fact.

So, if you wish to really know whether or not 'climate change' is taking place, and at what rate; you'll just have to get off your butt and go study the subject in-depth. You will need to hold an open mind to being proved wrong (whether your for or against the arguement).

Yes, some scientists say 'Global Warming' is not taking place. The vast majority of scientists seem to agree that it is taking place. Scientists argue things and for reasons very different then most of you. Which is why, you should learn the method by which they argue to gain a better understanding of the subject matter.

Here's a good place to start and understand the concept of Climate Change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Let's just think about this one...

Exibit A: (Tea Bagger Philosophy)

Person A accuses Person B, of not being Person C. Person B, has to show ID, that they are indeed, Person C.

Exibit B: (US Legal code)

Person A accuses Person B, of murder. Person A, would have to come up with the burdern of proof, to prove (whether by judge or jury), that Person B, was guilty of murder.

If we apply 'Tea Bagger' philosophy, one would have to prove their innocence beyond a shadow of doubt, regardless of what their accusers actually said, or the depth of their accusation. Unfortunately to Tea Baggers, that Exibit A is unconstitutional. Person B, would NOT, have to prove their innonounce, because they are assumed to be Person C. Person A, would have to explain to the legal/enforcement offical(s), that Person B, isn't who they say they are. This would have to include real, concrete evidence, like a photo of the real person in question.

While, yes, showing an ID would be quicker, it would also be unconstitutional. So, if the Tea Baggers are so concern with wasteful spending, why, spend heaps of money, people's time, to get law passed that the ACLU will easily destroy in court?