No blood in ants
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
No blood in ants
Maybe Wikipedia will approve an entry for the word "norg" now....
Comments (96)
Comment removed.
There is nothing wrong with wealth or the desire to create it. Indeed it is a virtue to be fruitful, and so recognized in the Bible. Where we get into trouble is when we allow wealth to become obscenely concentrated in the hands of a few. So when the Bible commands us to be fruitful, it also warns us of the consequences of becoming too rich, such that wealth becomes not just a means for doing good works but an end in itself (Jesus' analogy of the camel through the eye of a needle). How does this relate to the secular world? Simple. Look at how the super rich have chosen to invest their wealth created by the gratuitous tax cuts from the Reagan revolution forward (actually Reagan's revolution was basically a return to the economic philosophy that preceded the Great Depression). Not the so called trickle down effect, to be sure, but mindless speculation spurred on by the intoxicating power of greed. What ensued was a bubble which had to burst, and alas, it has. Thus endeth the lesson.- Comment removed.
I'm going to sign off now, bp. No conspiracy. I'll be back later to explain how you're wrong should you care to post in the interim.— Talking point sleuth- Let's go, bp. Let's hear it about your accountability - screaming over and over about how I was posting as didderbops. Careful now, don't get angry.— Talking point sleuth
- "I love it when people say that rich people are paying a higher total percentage of taxes to justify lowering high-end taxes." That is factually incorrect, not even close..." Nope - not factually incorrect at all. People do, regularly, say that rich people are paying a higher total percentage of taxes to justify high-end tax cuts. In fact, you just did so in your excerpt. LOL! And I love your conspiracies based on your careful tracking of exactly when I do and don't post. Almost ranks right up there with your conspiracies about how I was actually posting as didderbops. LOL! But now why don't you explain how accountable you are. Hilarious. Or maybe you'll ask me to prove that a significant percentage of people in the financial industry dispense advice based on their own self-interest. You're in the industry, and you don't even know about scandals like the one that happened with Merrill Lynch? Seriously, bp, that is hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Oh, and btw - the fact remains that the point I made in the quote you took from me below was accurate. Income for the super rich and the rich have grown dramatically faster than for the middle class and lower classes - as the result of Republican policies. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- I mis-stated something and owned up to it. Try it sometime, hp. Or maybe you'll go back to claiming that you can deliberately truncate quotes from me in order to be deliberately misleading if you use single-quotes - because it is standard convention to use single-quotes to "paraphrase." LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Thanks for the link, RG. I had that a few months ago, but lost it. Now, let's see if birdie complains about the accuracy of numbers from the Heritage Foundation. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- More, from the Heritage Foundation: spending vs revenues http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C2-Government-Spending-Grew-Faster.html debt as % of gdp per prez http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C3-All-Recent-Administrations-Ran-Up.html— RG
- Also, you also need to factor in money stashed away in vehicles designed, specifically, to allow for the avoidance of taxes. Income taxes do not equal federal taxes, and payroll taxes affect lower-wage earners disproportionately. But yeah, I did overstate it when I said that the middle class pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes than the super rich. From what I have read - the rich, as opposed to the incredibly rich, pay more or less the same proportion as the middle class, and the working class pay somewhat less, but the super rich do pay more. Somebody call a whaaaaamublance.— Talking point sleuth
- Here's some official stats. Look at table 7.1 for debt as ratio of GDP. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf— RG
- LOL! Check it out again, birdie. Here's what I said: "data that was collected from WhiteHouse.gov? " Is it possible that you really didn't understand that? Look at the graph from yesterday. Look at where the data in the graph came from. WhiteHouse.gov. And I also answered you yesterday --snip-- "I was referencing numbers which are not a function of ideology. Again, check out the graph - it says the same thing (except in graphic form, so toadies like bp can understand it), and it is based on White House stats. That graph really is devastating though, isn't it?" -- snip -- Wow! I guess you're just addicted to being wrong, eh?— Talking point sleuth
- "These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare." This is the key, bp. its effective tax rate, since SSN payroll taxes are capped at a certain wage, this hurts low income people more. Thier tax burden is higher, but not when you factor in investment income, etc.— RG
- Comment removed.
Funny thing TPS your link yesterday wasn't to a whitehouse.gov it was to http://911review.org/Media/National_Debt.html - I'm sure you didn't mean to misrepresent your link because when you posted that link yesterday I responded quite similiarly to today (funny you didn't answer this yesterday when I pointed it out even though you had time to respond to your own posting all night, we'll get back to that) here is what I said in case you forgot "Again source is important - not saying the chart is wrong TPS but a sight that also boast articles on "Mind Control at MIT" and "Google and the CIA" and contains the front page quote of the day ""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." May, and just may, skimp on fact checkers." Just wondering why you didn't bring this up in the 8 post you made over six hours after I questioned it yesterday. Maybe it would have been too easy to show it wasn't from Whitehouse.gov— bird11- "unless someone can satisfy the onus of proving the Laffer Curve's claims" The Laffer curve by itslef isn't so bad, its in its interpreations and how it is justified for continued tax cuts. the curve itslef shows that eventually if you cut taxes too much you will lower revenue. the key is to figure out where we are currently on the laffer curve, which is often an exercise in futility.— RG
- I'm sorry, birdie, I don't quite understand. Does the fact that the person who put together those stats is strongly opposed to Bush's policies mean that the numbers aren't accurate? Did you happen to notice that the stats coincide precisely with the data in the graph I posted yesterday - data that was collected from WhiteHouse.gov? Gee. I guess so. So, birdie, why don't you supply use with those more accurate data you base your opinion on?— Talking point sleuth
- Once again TPS source is so neutral as to call into question the validity of his statistics. This sounds like it could actually be TPS's own website: "I am not a fan of President Bush. Collected here are all the various papers and letters to the editors that I have written about him, his mistakes and other related topics over the last few years. The missives are listed in reverse order, that is, the newest will always be at the top of the list. Click on the blue title to view the document. The actions of our illegitimate President have made this country less secure, poorer, more divided than ever and less respected world wide. His mistakes have caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, all to help his questionable political goals. He has failed the nation. I had to laugh (as if that is an unusual response for me) when I heard a Republican friend of mine suggest that Mr. Bush is our President and all Americans should support and respect him for that reason alone. This same person often took glee in pointing out the foibles of our past President, and he never gave Mr. Clinton any respect whether it concerned domestic or foreign affairs. Double standards are alive and well. While I disagree with Mr. Bush on almost every point, I do try to consistently give him the situational respect he is due. I also try to use facts to form and support my opinions. That is not to say that I am above getting shrill at times. But in the end, this whole site is about opinions, specifically my perspective on the world and American politics. (This must be my low-end form of a blog!?!) Mostly I hope that these writings will get folks to think, and sometimes to argue. Even if your a Republican hard core Neo-Con it's good to think."— bird11
- "I've never seen that argument put into a hypothesis showing such. The onus on this claim should be on the proponents of this rider." . . . . . Absolutely, that's a given, RG (and of course, it should apply to both sides of the aisle). I simply suggested that it seemed to have greater potential to stimulate growth at a lower cost to taxpayers than a mere tax cut (unless someone can satisfy the onus of proving the Laffer Curve's claims), based on logic and the assumption that prevention programs might actually work.
- Hey sloboat, I know you like nice pictures. Check out figure 3 at this website: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm If I could type the description in large letters for you, I would, but I can't, so I'll just cut and paste. --snip-- The graph above in Figure 3 illustrates the myth that you can cut taxes and increase spending and expect to get increased government revenue. Interestingly, since Johnson, every Democrat has increased revenue more than spending. However in the opposite case, under all five Republican Presidents, since Nixon, government revenue has decreased and spending has increased. This is positive, unambiguous proof that cutting taxes does not increase revenue.— Talking point sleuth
- OK "darn" those super rich Democrats!!— bird11
- Dated 10/2008 "Times are tough, but don't worry about most members of Congress making ends meet. "Their collective wealth grew by 13 percent last year, leaving them in better shape than most Americans to make it through an economic downturn, according to a new analysis of personal financial reports. "Overall, nearly two of every three senators are millionaires. That includes presidential candidates Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. In the House, 39 percent of all members belong to the exclusive club. "Only 1 percent of all Americans are considered millionaires. " 'With a median net worth of $746,000, most members of Congress have a comfortable financial cushion to ride out any recession,' said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which conducted the study. "In the House of Representatives, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranks No. 1, with $397 million, followed by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., with $343 million. Rep Robin Hayes, R-N.C., ranks third, with $173.4 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ranks sixth, with $62 million. "In the Senate, the two Democrats from Massachusetts claimed two of the top three spots. "Sen. John Kerry led the pack, with $336 million, while Sen. Edward M. Kennedy ranked third, with $104 million. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., ranked second, with $241.5 million. Overall, senators had a median net worth estimated at $1.7 million.— bird11
- I meant 'companies' of course.— James TL
- I love it when people say that rich people are paying a higher total percentage of taxes to justify lowering high-end taxes. The point is that their incomes have grown massively also, while incomes for the poor and the middle class haven't. The point is that the income gap has grown under the economic policies crafted when the Blue Dogs and Repubs held the greater influence. The point is that talking about total amounts of taxes paid by the rich is done to hide the real numbers behind how much the rich actually pay in taxes as a percentage of their income. And btw, bp, I don't blame the super-wealthy for investing their money in ways that they can hold onto more of it. It's common sense to do so. I blame the politicians who craft policies that contribute to the income gap, and toadies who blindly support those policies. Don't take offense, though. Of course, you aren't one of those toadies. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Trickledown economics don't work. It's predicated on rich business owners investing back into this country. Unfortunately, they don't do that. Instead they move their companies to other countries where their workers are paid a pittance. They pocket the profit or use it to aquire other countries. We have to get away from subsidzing those that undercut American workers. Unfortunately, our law makers are easily paid off to write laws in favor of big business. America is fast becoming a third world country. Glad I'm not 30 with two children to feed.— James TL
- Paul can only create that job and/or invest IF Joe (or another consumer) demands or spends on his product.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "The CBO responded with a Jan. 27 letter from CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf estimating the cost of borrowing the money would be $347.1 billion – or about 42 percent of the cost of the projects. That would push the total cost of the stimulus package to over $1.17 trillion. “Such [interest] costs … are not counted for congressional scorekeeping purposes for such legislation,” Elmendorf stated in his letter to Rep. Ryan."— bird11
- Comment removed.
- "The fact that the Blue Dogs and Repubs got us here isn't exactly an indicator that they should have more power in what happens next." I'd say loose credit, a misguided push to increased homeownership, and lax regs helped get us here and it was a product of both parties.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- bp, I see your point, but remember: the rich just got cleaned out investing with madoff, buying CDOs, etc. which hardly contributed to economic growth. A $1k check to a low wage earner, helps them pay bills, buy food and clothes, keeping those necessary vendors afloat. It would also be done w/o loose credit, which is what got us here.— RG
- Comment removed.
- To be clear, I have no problems investing in smart infrastructure, just no bridges to nowhere or unneccessary roads that will require more tax $ to maintain. The same with building new schools, yes it creates new jobs, but past that does it have any tangible benefits? will it drain future resources?— RG
- ---}}} That money, more times than not, will be wasted, will not contribute to any sustainable economic growth {{{--- LOL! As opposed to when it goes to the Caymans. As opposed to when it goes into capital investments when capital gains taxes would be diminished as Republicans advocate. That's rich.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Which, as I said earlier, will just lead toa return to power for the pubs when these measures fail to create jobs. {{{--- I say give it a shot. The fact that the Blue Dogs and Repubs got us here isn't exactly an indicator that they should have more power in what happens next. I'm not as convinced as you are that this package won't have a net positive effect.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} And, once again, there is research that tax cuts have a greater effect than spending (especially on that stuff). {{{--- I would agree that there is probably more research supporting that contention than the opposite viewpoint - based purely on the observation that it seems most economists favor some degree of tax cuts as a stimulus. However, it's when you place that abstracted formula into context that it gets much more complicated. There is a lot of empirical evidence to support a stimulus such as the one proposed, no matter the disproportionate component that might, arguably, be labeled as fluff. And there's no consensus that I've seen from economists on the impact of this stimulus. Economists don't know what to think, and just doing nothing is not an option. But to me, those differing perspectives on tax cuts vs. no tax cuts pretty much balance each other out. What matters to me is that people have jobs, that people learn skills, that we have better infrastructure - factors that speak to quality of life issues for larger numbers of people. There can be arguments made on both sides about the New Deal, but what is unarguable is that people learned skills, people were educated, people were able to have food to eat, and we got a lot of excellent infrastructure as a result - infrastructure that enabled us to become preeminent.— Talking point sleuth
- "A two percent Tax increase or whatever the percentage is, does not eliminate that drive." See GDP growth and tax rates under Clinton vs Dubya to further question this myth. If bp's theory were correct, people would have stopped working under Clinton and GDP woulda plunged, vice versa under Bush 2. and yes, I relaize there are other factors.— RG
- Comment removed.
- bp, that is an weak argument. as you make more money you pay more taxes, even in a flat tax environment. That's math. And yes there is still incentive to work hard. it's a couple percentage point difference, not a confiscation of all income over a certain level. The motivated work harder because they want to, they want more and they want success. A two percent Tax increase or whatever the percentage is, does not eliminate that drive.— gee1971
- "But it goes back to your contention that we'd be better off if the show were being run by Blue Dogs and the opponents to this package." A better balance of power *COULD* be a precusor for a better bill. Now the far left dems can ignore the pubs and blue dogs and spend wildly. Which, as I said earlier, will just lead toa return to power for the pubs when these measures fail to create jobs.— RG
- ---}}} Your guess would be right, however that still doesn't justify Dems putting this stuff in the bill as a wish list. {{{--- Agreed. But it goes back to your contention that we'd be better off if the show were being run by Blue Dogs and the opponents to this package.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Why should they get anything back? {{{--- Right. Because forking over a few more thousands, or even tens of thousands, when they have incomes in the hundreds of millions, is such a hardship. What's amazing about this nonsense is that there are actually enough dolts out there who believe it.— Talking point sleuth
- bp, to add to TPS' point look up the Warren Buffet challenge. when payroll taxs, et al are considered, he found out his effective tax rate is less than his secretarys.— RG
- ---}}} This little beaut really sums up nicely how a bitter liberal views the world. If you make more, you should pay more. {{{--- LOL! Take a gander at how much the rich actually pay, bp. Far less than the middle class. They park their money in the Caymans and have myriad other ways to avoid actually paying. Where are the rich going to go if they have to pay more in taxes? China? Somalia? Venezuela? Buh bye.— Talking point sleuth
- "Punish success and reward laziness." Now here's where I take umbrage with your pov, bp. Lets look at a janitor vs a Wall Street CEO. Can you really consider the janitor lazy and the CEO successful? Which one worked harder, which one didn't drive the financial system to a near collpase while pocketing millions w/o any measure of success?— RG
- Comment removed.
- "My guess is that the comparison is not proportionate. My guess is that the Blue Dogs and Repubs would direct far more towards the wealthiest than the current package would direct towards the targets you question." Your guess would be right, however that still doesn't justify Dems putting this stuff in the bill as a wish list. And, once again, there is research that tax cuts have a greater effect than spending (especially on that stuff). Romer and her husband just did a study, I beleive.— RG
- ---}}} They would just rather switch more of the spending (National Endowment of the Arts? The National Mall? ) to tax cuts for high earners and big business. {{{--- What are the percentages there, RG? What proportion does the current package direct to those entities you think shouldn't be included? What percentage would the Blue Dogs and Repubs want to see directed towards tax cuts for the wealthiest .01% of the country? An honest question. My guess is that the comparison is not proportionate. My guess is that the Blue Dogs and Repubs would direct far more towards the wealthiest than the current package would direct towards the targets you question.— Talking point sleuth
- "That's pretty much the way the stimulus package is designed, and that is exactly what the Blue Dogs and Repubs will fight tooth and nail." Not necessarily. They would just rather switch more of the spending (National Endowment of the Arts? The National Mall? ) to tax cuts for high earners and big business. They don't want to stop the other tax cuts.— RG
- "Cutting government spending is not, in and of itself, categorically a net positive." No, it isn't. I've often argued for less defense spending, and cutting other non-beneficial programs. I am fine with most of the social safety nets we have. However, consumer spending and investment make up roughly 70% of GDP, which means government spending is only a small portion.— RG
- ---}}} Its not tying them to spending cuts that was the failure. {{{--- So, that is where I'd disagree with you. It is because the tax cuts were not directed towards lessening the gap between the rich and the poor that is the failure. Cut taxes on the middle class? Great. Cut taxes on the super-rich? Bad. Targeted tax cuts for small businesses? Maybe. That's pretty much the way the stimulus package is designed, and that is exactly what the Blue Dogs and Repubs will fight tooth and nail.— Talking point sleuth
- "The cost/benefit impact of STD prevention however seems to be much greater in the long run." I've never seen that argument put into a hypothesis showing such. The onus on this claim should be on the proponents of this rider.— RG
- ---}}} The tax cuts in and of themselves are not inherently evil. {{{--- Tax cuts, in and of themselves, are a choice and a statement of your vision of the role of government. When they're designed so as to benefit the rich, at the direct expense of the middle class and the poor, the statement and vision are unambiguous. Government spending is what made this country what it is. Cutting government spending is not, in and of itself, categorically a net positive.— Talking point sleuth
- "because one will have a much more immediate and measurable effect." . . . Perhaps, but that's merely a matter of degree of stimulus (and don't get me wrong, I think strategic tax cuts or incentives are needed, especially to restore American jobs that have been shipped overseas). The cost/benefit impact of STD prevention however seems to be much greater in the long run.
- "Blue Dogs are the descendants of the Yellow Dogs, who made their name by supporting Reagan's tax cuts." The tax cuts in and of themselves are not inherently evil. Its not tying them to spending cuts that was the failure. The MMA greatly increased prescription drug coverage, although at a tremendous cost, that I'm sure some Repubs would like to have that vote back.— RG
- I think you're really stretching there, RG. The Medicare expansion was corporate welfare for pharmaceutical companies. They tried as hard as they could to privatize SS (and imagine how much worse the economic condition would be had they been successful). I will give credit for McCain on the Bush tax cuts, however, but he was in a tiny minority there. Blue Dogs are the descendants of the Yellow Dogs, who made their name by supporting Reagan's tax cuts.— Talking point sleuth
- "Why is only the latter considered "stimulus" by the GOP?" because one will have a much more immediate and measurable effect.— RG
- "Really? Can you give some examples?" Well, the medicare expansion passed in Bush's first term. They never moved to privatize SSN. And I know a few, including McCain, orginally voted against his tax cuts because they were too tilted to the top earners.— RG
- "The bill is about stimulating the economy and creating jobs." . . . . . Trying to reduce health care costs to employers via prevention seems to be no different than trying to reduce their tax burden via tax cuts. Why is only the latter considered "stimulus" by the GOP?
- ---}}} Not all of them want to cut safety net programs or taxes for the welathiest. {{{-- Really? Can you give some examples?— Talking point sleuth
- "With Blue Dogs and Republicans you get a widening gap between the rich and the poor and the starving of government programs that would help alleviate that problem." Not all of them want to cut safety net programs or taxes for the welathiest. I agree with them in cutting back government to a more manageble and affordable level, as long as it is done with intelligence (which is ALWAYS the problem).— RG
- Pork is a precondition of our political process. It's what happens when politicians spend their entire existence hoovering up campaign funds, and looking towards their next election. They're all crooks - but controlling for that, what else happens. With Blue Dogs and Republicans you get a widening gap between the rich and the poor and the starving of government programs that would help alleviate that problem. They will spend just as irresponsibly, under the false claim that it is beneficial to the economy, and that everyone will benefit. The numbers don't lie.— Talking point sleuth
- "The Republican tax wish list is just a different cut of pork." Just because they do it as well, doesn't make it right. The bill is about stimulating the economy and creating jobs. It's a huge stretch to say the STD part does either. Bring it to committee and argue it on its own merits, don't tuck it into a recovery bill during these times.— RG
- Doesn't the stimulus package contain any tax breaks for buying Viagra in the states? That might explain Rush's opposition.
- Healthcare companies and the government spend billions of dollars each year on AIDS related costs. Yet 300 million for STD prevention is "pork". You know, because the BILLION spent on abstinence only education was so effective. Free condoms? FREE CONDOMS? Oh the humanity! Can't we use that condom money to pay for promise rings or virginity oath certificates? Tax cuts are a form of spending. Yes, I just wrote that Mr. Boehner. The Republican tax wish list is just a different cut of pork.— pagoda
- "And who do you look forward to seeing them replaced with, RG?" Preferrably blue dog Dems or maybe indies. There truly is some nonsense pork in that bill. The Dems that put it in and passed it, are drunk on power and have tin ears. They are overreaching already, just as our conservative friends here predicted. and they are placing Obama in a bad situation.— RG
- And who do you look forward to seeing them replaced with, RG?— Talking point sleuth
- "I look forward to House Democrats having to defend all the outrageous, non-stimulus slop in that bill at the polls in 2 years." I look forward to them being voted out as well.— RG
- "I look forward to House Democrats having to defend all the outrageous, non-stimulus slop in that bill at the polls in 2 years." . . . . . Well, at least you're stimulated batty, and that's what counts. Heck, even Rush has "hope" (as in "I hope Obama fails").
- Comment removed.
- You know, I think that all this hatred of "pork" is just yet another example of the self-loathing of Attytood Republican toadies. ---}}} Compare growth in federal tax revenue to growth in federal spending in the past eight administrations: Johnson, revenue up 25%, spending up 24% (+1); Nixon, revenue up 17%, spending up 21% (-4%); Ford, revenue up 11%, pending up 22% (-11%); Carter, revenue up 20%, spending up 13%, (+7%); Reagan, revenue up 15%, spending up 25% (- 10%); Bush I, revenue up 17%, spending up 18% (-1%); Clinton, revenue up 35%, spending up 9% (+26%); Bush II, revenue up 10%, spending up 25% (-15%). That would mean that greater revenue than spending growth in EVERY Dem administration and greater spending than revenue growth in EVERY Republican administration. Here are some more stats - Budget deficits: Kennedy, -1%, Johnson -0.9%, Nixon -1.6%, Ford -3.5%, Carter, -2.4%, Reagan, -4.3%, Bush I, -4.3%, Clinton, -0.1%, Bush II, -2.5%. ---}}}} Notice a trend there? Yup. Bigger deficit growth under Repubs, lower deficit growth under Dems. Dubbya has had the least spending vetoes of last 9 administrations. There were more earmarks in 2005 than 1991-1999 combined.---}}} Spending on defense is in decline despite “war on terrorism” -- which means the economic disaster that was the Bush administration can't be pinned on the "GWOT."— Talking point sleuth
- This is awesome. Watching the Swiftys and bats getting so worked up- and we're still in January. At this rate, they'll all be dead by Easter. Wonder if it ever dawned on them eight years of GW may be at least partially responsible for current conditions. Like the conditions that provided for an Obama Presidency. Their greed and blind faith in a moron directly led to the election of the man they think will destroy America. Maybe they should be aiming the gun in a different direction???— pagoda
- "...and you cant mention Obama cause things arent exactly going as dreamed, eh?" . . . You mean like this dream? "The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the Convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here."
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} and you cant mention Obama cause things arent exactly going as dreamed, eh? {{{--- Opinion polls show Obama's favorable ratings going up, unfavorable ratings going down. Republicans blocking his economic policies will have the exact same effect as Republican toadies criticizing him for going after Jihadis in Afghanistan. But Palin's formed a PAC - so you can all go down in flames again in 2012.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Nothing else to write about? Your whipping boy is gone, and you cant mention Obama cause things arent exactly going as dreamed, eh?— E Plebnista
- "Congratulations Will, you just invented The Drudge Report." . . . Funny. Drudge doesn't even have a feedback system on his site.
- "BUCK OFAMA" . . . . Wow, you really fooled the censors this time, Swifty.
- Comment removed.
- Maybe our vigilant wingnuts can use their purported influence here to convince Tierney to have a chat with Will about the norg model. It would seem to be in their self-interest, and who knows, maybe they can become citizen journalists? Nahhh. Then who would they pick on?
Congratulations Will, you just invented The Drudge Report.— jmc- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Stasis." The Inquirer motto...
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
Great to see that people still remember the norg. And AHiredGun is right about the wingnuts.- Will, the wingnuts will wet their pants over this one.— AHiredGun
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: