alex

How dare you deviate from the safe response or comment Scott? "NOPE" should have never been replaced...

A friend of mine is married to a controller in the chicagoland area. He started working there back when Bush was still around his pay was in the mid 50k's. After Obama came in most salaries were re-negotiated by the union and all those were brought up to 140k. Take a wild guess who most of these controllers voted for!

MO 16576 "Some of you seem to think that the sequestration is more for show, or that it doesn't matter. Perhaps to you it doesn't matter. To me it does." I really am sorry for what you are going through, I think it is reprehensible to make random cuts that hurt so many in such a direct manner without thinking of the ramifications. It seems there are some who are comfortable enough to joke about it with a smug look on their face. (This was in Illinois,Friday 15th of March) http://youtu.be/247-SYVlb9U ...and then you have reports like this one that just make no sense at all 2 days after sequestration began. Kerry says U.S. releasing millions in aid to Egypt By The Associated Press This article was originally published March 3, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. Updated March 3, 2013 at 2:50 p.m. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday rewarded Egypt for President Mohammed Morsi’s pledges of political and economic reforms by releasing $250 million in American aid to support the country’s “future as a democracy.” Yet Kerry also served notice that the Obama administration will keep close watch on how Morsi, who came to power in June as Egypt’s first freely elected president, honors his commitment and that additional U.S. assistance would depend on it. “The path to that future has clearly been difficult and much work remains,” Kerry said in a statement after wrapping up two days of meetings in Egypt, a deeply divided country in the wake of the revolution that ousted longtime President Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is trying to meet conditions to close on a $4.8 billion loan package from the International Monetary Fund. An agreement would unlock more of the $1 billion in U.S. assistance promised by President Barack Obama last year and set to begin flowing with Kerry’s announcement. “The United States can and wants to do more,” Kerry said. “Reaching an agreement with the IMF will require further effort on the part of the Egyptian government and broad support for reform by all Egyptians. When Egypt takes the difficult steps to strengthen its economy and build political unity and justice, we will work with our Congress at home on additional support.” Kerry cited Egypt’s “extreme needs” and Morsi’s “assurances that he plans to complete the IMF process” when he told the president that the U.S. would provide $190 million of a long-term $450 million pledge “in a good-faith effort to spur reform and help the Egyptian people at this difficult time.” The release of the rest of the $450 million and the other $550 million tranche of the $1 billion that Obama announced will be tied to successful reforms, officials said. Separately, the top U.S. diplomat announced $60 million for a new fund for “direct support of key engines of democratic change,” including Egypt’s entrepreneurs and its young people. Kerry held out the prospect of U.S. assistance to this fund climbing to $300 million over time. Recapping his meetings with political figures, business leaders and representatives of outside groups, Kerry said he heard of their “deep concern about the political course of their country, the need to strengthen human rights protections, justice and the rule of law, and their fundamental anxiety about the economic future of Egypt.” Those issues came up in “a very candid and constructive manner” during Kerry’s talks with Morsi. “It is clear that more hard work and compromise will be required to restore unity, political stability and economic health to Egypt,” Kerry said. Syria and Iran were topics of discussion, according to officials.

Did I mention I live with a liberal? Shower them with gifts and they keep calling your name!

It would be nice to have a debate free of epithets and insults but in today's polarized atmosphere it is almost impossible. So I'll leave it there and will concentrate on some other fun things. Like watching Jon Stewart, even if it is a rerun. Over and out.

Enjoy your show! Attention to detail may help in the future. I did not call anyone names, I did not say Ryan dismantled anything...That was an article from MRC. As far as Beck is concerned, I believe he was on CNN(a whack job network? .....Soledad O'brien(maybe!)) before and there are a few people including Chris Matthews who though he was great, until he started speaking against the left of center.crowd.. and just like other anchors or opinion throwers, they move from place to place depending on who may have a better contract (($), but they become extremists or looneys when they join the dark side (right of center), which only further proves my point)....Lou Dobbs ring a bell? How about the Poster child of MSNBC Keith Olbermann to current . Great argument AmigO! http://youtu.be/qKXzn6BOw5g On MSNBC no less! Chris Matthews: "You're great-I listen to you all the time"

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." The senator? Sen. Barack Obama, in 2006. I wish that guy was President now. Me too!

BUDGET DEFICITS AND HOW PRESIDENTS TRULY RANK. FORBES 7/11/2012 (Rich people magazine, so I figure they know a little about money issues!) James K. Glassman, Contributor, I write on the economy, personal investing, and public policy. Please forgive me. Over and over, I hear misinformation about deficits in prior administrations, and I can’t keep quiet any longer. I have to correct the record. The latest was on “Squawk Box” on Monday morning. Joe Kernan, the host, is interviewing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, ex-candidate for president and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Kernen cites campaign comments about “bad policies” going back “decades” affecting the high rate of unemployment today. He asks, “What specific policies in the Bush Administration do you think are still being used to explain 8 percent unemployment?” Dean responds, “The biggest ones are the deficits that were run up…. The deficits were enormous Let’s shed some factual light on the situation by turning to table B-79 of the current Economic Report of the President. There we find the official statistics on federal spending, receipts, and deficits (or surpluses) as proportions of Gross Domestic Product. These are the figures that economists use in determining the relationship of the deficit to the overall economy, answering the question, “How much more are we spending than taking in?” We can average the deficit-to-GDP ratio during a presidential term and get a good take on whether “deficits were enormous” in historic terms or not. The only tricky part is whether to give a president credit (or blame) for his incoming and outgoing years. For example, President Reagan took office on Jan. 20, 1980, but fiscal year 1980 started four months earlier. Similarly, he left office Jan. 20, 1989, but fiscal 1989 still had four months to run. I decided to use three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents: Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2 George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2 Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5 George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7 Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012 The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.) As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II. Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama. Sad part is that this does not settle anything.There are those who will come up with their own numbers and explanations to suit their agenda. Only time will tell and history will make liars out of one or the other, or both! WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

Pretty nice!

Don't be sorry AmigO, my wife, a card carrying teacher's union member and self-described progressive liberal, loves Colbert, Stewart, Newsweek, Slate, New York Times, Huffington Post, Rachael Maddow....You name it, I've seen it in my home. They are all hilarious and since you brought up Limbaugh, using his lingo I could say (considering I have lived with her for the past 14 years) that I know a liberal and their sources like I know every inch of my glorious naked body. Sufficient to say she too had a convulsive orgasm, a thrill up her leg (as Chris Matthews might say), when she learned not from a comedy show, (as informative as you might think Jon Stewart and Colbert are, it does not take away the fact that they are COMEDY shows geared toward that...uh oh, here it comes...."low information voter") but from an established educational institution that found that Fox News made you ignorant. Not too long ago there was a poll that came out that basically parroted this previous "study", only this time NPR was highlighted as the source of best informed audience, did you catch that one? Some studies and polls are very hard to take seriously because they can all be manipulated to give you the results you seek. I will not discredit your source because I think all sides should be heard and in many situations, such as this one, eye-opening ....consider this article from about the same time in 2010: For the past few days, the far-left Fox haters have been using a study by the University of Maryland's World Public Opinion project to claim that FNC "mis-informs" its viewers. There's nothing particularly novel about the claims, but some lefties are apparently under the impression that this study lends academic weight to their deranged hatred of everything Fox. It does not. Let's start with the study's broad disclaimer, which should have (but so far has not) dissuaded the Fox haters from their rabid attacks. The study's findings (pdf) plainly state: …misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on. Anyone who thought calls to refrain from extrapolating some condemnation of specific media outlets from this study would deter liberals from doing just that clearly has not dealt with the Fox-haters before. Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik expanded on the problem with singling out Fox, or any other news organization, using this study's findings: Most of the fact-based questions about whether certain programs were started under Bush or Obama were, in fact, the very subject matter of political attack ads. And it would be no surprise to find that far more of those ads aired on Fox, since it is by far the highest-rated cable news channel with the biggest audience. And the channel is watched by many independents and people who are likely to actually go to the polls and vote. I read nothing in the report that addressed that possible misreading of the data -- that the "misinformation" came from the political ads viewers saw on Fox and not from Fox editorial content. These issues of course did not stop liberal blog after liberal blog after liberal blog from piling on, with equal parts righteous condemnation and jubilant "told-you-so" snark. But there are plenty of problems inherent in using the study as a cudgel against Fox beyond the specific, direct warning to not do so, and the problems inherent in ignoring that warning. Chief among them is the study's strange means of deciding what is true. Guest-blogging for Patterico, Aaron Worthing examined one such example: But the hilarious part is that the authors of the study themselves are misinformed. For instance, their first question is this “is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation: A) created or saved several million jobs, saved or created a few jobs, or C) caused job losses.” The first option is marked as correct. WPO's "evidence": The Congressional Budget Office "concluded that for the third quarter of 2010, ARRA had 'increased the number of full time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 to 5.2 million compared to what those amounts would have been otherwise.'" But there are two problems with that. First, um, we are going to trust the government to estimate the success of the government on this? Really? Second, that utterly fails to relate to the question, which is whether a majority of economists who studied the question believe this to be the case. And that question - whether a majority of economists agree with some contention - is a strange way to phrase it. Johnny Dollar explains: Any time you ask about what ‘most economists’ believe, you aren’t really asking for facts or data. You’re asking someone to know the result of some survey--like an episode of Family Feud. Furthermore, CBO's numbers have no basis in reality, as I have reported a number of times before. They are based on models that assume stimulus spending will create growth and employment, and hence the success of this particular stimulus package is predetermined. So if the idea is to reveal who is more attuned to reality, the CBO numbers are irrelevant; they only exist on paper, and have no real bearing on the success of the ARRA in creating jobs. The blind faith the study puts in CBO's numbers suggest that it is quite eager to pass them off ipso facto as truth. That says a lot about WPO's perspective on the issue, and their politics generally. The study makes a similar move with regard to the CBO score on ObamaCare's effect on the deficit. It parrots the numbers CBO released just before ObamaCare passed in March showing deficit-neutrality, but neglects to mention that those numbers pegged the law's 10-year cost using only 6 years of expenditures. Rep. Paul Ryan beautifully during the health care "summit." Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin blasted the "fantasy" numbers, and claimed the law would add $562 billion to the deficit. Even Democratic Senator Max Baucus admitted that the bill's cost was roughly 250% of the CBO score. So the WPO study once again cherry-picked the numbers that would produce the "truth" best suited to bashing Fox News. For a study ostensibly concerned with "misinformation," the WPO is certainly peddling its fair share. Zurawik picked up on this trend as well. "[T]he definition of a respondent who is considered 'informed,'" Zurawik wrote, "is essentially someone who agrees with the conclusions of experts in government agencies." So, presumably, if you were to disagree with such top economic experts in government as Timothy Geithner or Larry Summers, you would be labeled as misinformed. If you dared to disagree with those experts in government who say that the Wall Street bailout was absolutely necessary and that the takeover of GM was desperately needed and that healthcare reform will actually be good for the economy -- you would be labeled as MISINFORMED... Or, think of it this way: If this survey had been conducted when George W. Bush was president and his wall of "experts" in "government agencies" were working overtime to sell the New York Times on the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, you could have been "misinformed" if you said there were no such WMD's in Iraq. M-I-S-I-N-F-O-R-M-E-D. Agency experts did, after all, say the existence of such weapons was a fact. Beyond the problems with the supposed-"truth" of specific questions, the question selection was itself stilted against Fox, as Johnny Dollar noted: When you touch on 11 issues, most of them about ‘misinformation’ from the right, with only one (re the Chamber of Commerce) about ‘misinformation’ from the left , you are going to end up with many more cases of ‘right wing’ misinformation, skewing the result. Why no questions like: Were the Bush tax cuts primarily for the wealthy? Or: Does the middle class pay the majority of federal income taxes? By making most of the questions about one variety of ‘misinformation’, the study insured that more ‘misinformation’ would be found among viewers of that persuasion. After all this, it should come as little surprise that WPO receives funding from a variety of hard-left organizations, such as the Ploughshare Fund and the Soros-backed Tides Foundation. And it should be even less surprising that despite all the inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions in this study - despite even a direct warning against using the study to condemn single media outlets - it's been received by a frenzy of Fox-hatred from the left Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/20/study-claiming-fox-news-viewers-misinformed-fraught-errors#ixzz2NJ6cebqr

AMEN!....Too religious?

Umm, I'm actually defending your point and sympathize with you!

To answer your question without spewing my political views (pc police is in full force) it does smell, quite bad as a matter of fact.........really nasty B.O!

AmigOne, on 10 Mar 2013 - 20:32, said: HarrParr: "because.........Let me guess-the truth hurts?" What truth? insults are truth? ignorance is truth? You can never hurt with insults, you are only making a fool of yourself. If the right are the republicans and the left are the democrats then you have insulted every democrat in this forum. Is that being smart, having class and being able to debate issues? Anybody can hurl insults, and you are a living proof of that. You must still live in the cold war era mentality aggravated perhaps by too much exposure to Faux news. Relax, read a book and learn something. NOT JUST KATIE CURIC... Obama Cabinet Member Anita Dunn (DEM) at one point White House Communications Director said on video while speaking to high school kids that Mao Tse Tung was one of her "Favorite Philosophers", It's on video....look it up Van Jones (DEM) President Obama's former White House Environmental Adviser ("Green Jobs Czar"). Mr. Jones remains a self-defined Communist community organizer from the San Francisco Bay area (Oakland, California). Ron Bloom (DEM), 'Manufacturing Czar' cites Chairman Mao as a political guide. also on video. THE LIST IS LONG AND BORING, BUT IS ALL WELL DOCUMENTED. IF THAT IS YOUR THING, MORE POWER TO YOU. Assuming you are well informed, these facts should not come as a surprise.

Funny how you (AmigOne) manage to throw bombs while accusing him (HarrParr) of the same, because by default, too much exposure to evil Faux news leads to ignorance. If we could all be as enlightened! I shall start watching MSNBC (the real news channel) and enjoying a good read, you know, to learn something....Audacity of Hope, something by Derrick Bell OK?

That was absolutely beautiful to see... I'm jealous, I have a ten year old that would love to go flying but the wife will not allow it out of fear. Tears me up!

Hugo Chavez, a great leader and a man of the people. One who recognized the plight of the poor and did everything he could to level the playing field for all of his countrymen. He was selfless and giving during the 14 years he was able to publicly serve. It is too bad that he had to go so soon leaving so much of his great vision unfinished. He was able to make oil account for a little over 95% of the economy while managing to get rid of almost all other industry. He seized control nearly of everything that mattered, the military, congress, banking system and the media; hard to imagine why his well informed citizenry would ever consider voting against him. He inherited many problems from the previous administration, including a debt of 34 billion dollars, but thanks to his mighty leadership he was able to turn that debt into $150 billion showing that a determined and steady progress was being made. His out of the box thinking would have put this US congress to shame (if he would only get a fair coverage with our media). He had the courage tackle problems in a way that helped cut energy costs for those who needed relief, he brought rolling blackouts, shortages of basic goods and water rationing. Sadly he is now gone and the redistribution of wealth that he believed in and so wanted to bring about will now have to be put on hold. He rightfully believed (like some on this board) that capitalism was the way of the devil and exploitation.... Unfortunately, his death came so sudden and without warning that he had no chance to give away the fortune he acquired during his presidency, a net worth of over 1 billion dollars. There is no doubt that he had the best interest of his fellow Venezuelans in mind and it is a shame to see him go. May he now enjoy the warmth and the smell of sulfur he once mentioned while speaking to the united nations!

Careful! You might insult a couple or three on this board with that kind of insensitive and insencere talk...

I know this is not aviation related but seeing how misinformed everyone is on the face of this planet.... It was your damn cool, calm and composed and quite frankly, a bit more conservative than RR, co-pilot Barry(and his minions) who came up with the sequester idea. If you do research on your extensive information sources you might come up with Bob Woodward, who broke the story and apparently pissed of the cool and collected bunch in the oval office, so much that the reporter was told he would regret it. The following excerpt is from CNN, perhaps a source that is approved by those who are really smart and on top of it all... (Don't mean to be a dick, but it really irks me when all of a sudden those who have different opinions are labeled as misinformed idiots). WOLF BLITZER, CNN: You're used to this kind of stuff, but share with our viewers what's going on between you and the White House. BOB WOODWARD: Well, they're not happy at all and some people kind of, you know, said, look, 'we don't see eye to eye on this.' They never really said, though, afterwards, they've said that this is factually wrong, and they -- and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top -- BLITZER: What was said? WOODWARD: It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this. BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you? WOODWARD: Well, I'm not going to say. BLITZER: Was it a senior person at the White House? WOODWARD: A very senior person. And just as a matter -- I mean, it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'you're going to regret doing something that you believe in, and even though we don't look at it that way, you do look at it that way.' I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communication's strategy, let's hope it's not a strategy, that it's a tactic that somebody's employed, and said, 'Look, we don't go around trying to say to reporters, if you, in an honest way, present something we don't like, that, you know, you're going to regret this.' It's Mickey Mouse. (The Situation Room, February 27, 2013)

Please do tell where the enlightened get their information from, reveal your sources so that we can all be as informed as you. Even the Ignorant neanderthal small business owners hunger for real journalism. Thank you in advance.

The new manufactured crisis of the day, fear mongering galore... This is just the way this administration works. The neverending "sky is falling" campign has not taken a break since this man set foot in the White House. Enjoy the next four years!

One piece belly panel...unnecessary, Really? Changing square windows to the round newer type is unnecessary.