Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-01/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
Vice President Biden says congressional leaders are making progress to avoid a government shut-down. Advocacy groups have mixed reactions to President Obama’s energy speech. And a Wisconsin judge warns state officials about ignoring her order on collective bargaining rights. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
John Dickerson
chief political correspondent for Slate.com and CBS political analyst and contributor. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Washington correspondent, The New York Times.
Major Garrett
congressional correspondent, National Journal.
Friday News Roundup Video
Diane and the panelists discuss the tax laws that allowed General Electric to make profits of $14.2 billion in 2010 while paying no U.S. taxes. The company instead claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, causing a public outcry and raising questions about President Obama's pick of GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt earlier this year to head the Presidential Council on Jobs and Competitiveness:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"What about fact that corp execs make 100, 400, up to 1000x average American worker?"
What about it, Drew? You can include the President's confidant Jeffrey Immelt among those. IMHO that is up to the corporate boards. If you want the Federal Government to over-ride what corporte boards of directors do, then just say so. I don't. Not in this country.
"it's a matter of creating policies that encourage economy that works better for all."
Congratulations, Drew. You're a socialist. I don't say that in a derogatory fashion, by the way. That's just what it is. You can wish for more equinimity between bosses and workers, but if you mandate it, that's socialism. Again, I don't say that in a disparaging way. It's just a fact.
Idislikedianerehm wrote:
"Diane is a cult of personality but she's an obvious lib when her guests use inflamatory language like the phrase I heard today. They were discussing the Reagan assassination attempt and one of the panelists referred to "cop killing exploding bullets" and she made no attempt to correct him or tone down the lie that was voiced. Bullets do not explode. They expand or fragment."
Well, actually the type Hinckley used does explode. There is a difference between a true exploding bullet and a projectile designed to fragment on impact. But do you think Diane, or any of her panelists, knows anything about firearms and or ballistics? All that NPR requires for them to know is that firearms are evil and so is the 2nd Amendment.
The panelist no doubt remembered the 1981 erroneous NYT article (see below) about the Devastator bullet, a lacquer sealed aluminium tip with a lead azide centre designed to explode on impact that was developed in the 1970s for use by sky marshals to minimize the risk of penetration of the plane fuselage.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/03/us/explosive-bullet-struck-reagan-fbi-...
The truth is the quantity of explosive is small and, if it fails to detonate on high velocity impact, it is unlikely to explode during an operation, or postmortem examination. Contrary to the excitable liberal panelist, neither the doctors nor the secret service personnel were at risk of any life threatening injury
Ecgberht,
Soo… anyone that feels that the inequity in our society is clearly out of hand is a socialist.
By T party standards it seems anyone who believes in any kind of government programs created with intent of majority of citizens is socialist. By their definition the idea of government “for the people” is socialist.
Surely by your standard most of the founding fathers were socialist, since they believed in taxation, funding public programs, and creating programs that benefited all Americans- not just “property owners”.
I believe we are living in a Plutocracy- I don’t think that ‘s what our founding fathers intended. I think we can do better.
But these are my opinions.
I seem to recall reading at very young age that in communist Russia the top 5% controlled %95 of the wealth (need do my homework to confirm) and thinking about the greatness of our own system.
Maybe we’ll get to that point in America- we seem to be heading there as the redistribution of wealth (socialist term) towards the top continues to accelerate.
But at least you didn’t call me a Demo-prog (play on Republi-con)
I would feel much better about my country if the wealthy carried a bit more of what I believe should be their share of the tax burden (eliminate loopholes- whatever it takes). And we don’t reach a point where it’s a “wealthy folks world and the rest of us are just living in it”.
If that makes me a socialist in some people’s thinking, I’ve been called worst.
Later.
Drew Kelly wrote: "anyone that feels that the inequity in our society is clearly out of hand is a socialist."
Not at all. I'm sure some conservatives feel that way too.
"By T party standards it seems anyone who believes in any kind of government programs created with intent of majority of citizens is socialist. "
Of course not. But that's not the kind of programs socialists espouse. Instead, they espouse programs that redistribute wealth from the upper classes to the lower classes. That's not the government's job. Sorry. If you think that's what the founders had in mind, you are sadly mistaken.
"since they believed in taxation, funding public programs, and creating programs that benefited all Americans- not just “property owners”."
I think that might be better phrased as "they believed in taxation to fund a few specific government duties (no where does the word "programs" appear). Read Article 1, Section 8. And those duties were specific and limited.
The predecessor to the phrase "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness", was in fact "life, liberty, and property". For the first 75 years of our country's history, only property owners could vote. Preposterous you say? Not when you stop to think about it. Property owners have a stake in their country and their communities like no one else does. I'm not saying it's how we should go, but it is an idea that makes me stop and think.
Ecgbert,
Jefferson- suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor… and to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” “(With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
Madison wrote in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
Whereas conservatives, by definition, wish things to change the same, Progressives maintain a vision of a better world.
Many studies have shown that average American today has much lower chance of moving upwardly out of his parents income bracket. Unfortunately, education system in American, nowhere near the top, doesn’t teach such things.
Ecgbert,
Jefferson- suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor… and to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” “(With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
Madison wrote in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
Whereas conservatives, by definition, wish things to change the same, Progressives maintain a vision of a better world.
Many studies have shown that average American today has much lower chance of moving upwardly out of his parents income bracket. Unfortunately, education system in American, nowhere near the top, doesn’t teach such things.
Drew,
Your quotes are COMPLETELY dishonest and out of context. The first (tax the higher portions of property) is talking about how inheritance is taxed within a family!
The second (revenues applied to canals, roads, schools) is talking strictly about IMPORT DUTIES on LUXURY items! That's it! Be honest.
The third (Madison) ACTUALLY said, "By the silent operation of laws, which, WITHOUT VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort" (emphasis added).
"Many studies have shown ..."
I've noticed that these words are NEVER followed by any kind of link or documentation. Do you have any?
Jefferson DID say, "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." and "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
ecgberht
The two Jefferson quotes were made on separate occasions, so if my stating together implied that they were stated at same time, therefore rendering them “out of context”, then I’m guilty.
If Jefferson’s 1st statement referred to inheritence issues- then again you’re right- it was out of context, but that doesn’t sound right. But I’ll research time permitting.
“Studies” quote was taken 3/14 Times article America in Decline. “Several studies ,most recent from OECD last year, have found that average American has much lower chance of moving out of parents income bracket than do people in places like Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Canada”. I would need to research further, time permitting, to back up my statement further
Your Jefferson quotes makes pretty obvious sense, especially since Revolution was in large part sparked by excessive taxation and tariffs imposed by British. And it’s probably true that most Americans, except likes of Cheney and a few economists, don’t think perpetual debt is a good thing.
I’m not so sure that the violating rights of property emphasis, makes the intent of Madison’s statement any less revealing.
In any case I appreciate you keeping me honest, and civility of your comments.
Have a good weekend.
cicero on April 1, 2011 @ 9:38 pm wrote: “http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=733”
Thanks for the link!
As for Diane Rehms’ mistake, well that’s one reason none of us should take at face value what any member of the media (right, left, or center) has to say.
Fact check.
Fact check.
FACT CHECK
FACT CHECK!
In her defense, however, she probably was confused because while Thalidomide was not approved by the FDA (indeed, it was an example of a “big government” agency interfering with the “free market”, and thereby limiting the damage that drug caused here), the drug was being used in clinical trials here, and that’s one reason there are American “Thalidomide babies”. She was probably thinking of that, and didn’t realize the FDA hadn’t given approval for general use.
To ecgberht, writing on April 1, 2011 @ 3:25 pm:
PART ONE
Obviously your rant is too long for me to quote in full, scrambled eggs old buddy, but I’ll try to make some brief replies (well, brief for me).
“Shall I reduce your parroting of the left to shards with some facts?”
- Except you didn’t. Instead you gave us a post to a conservative’s commentary. Hate to break it to you, but opinion isn’t fact.
Also, this was commentary about rioting in Great Britain (and the Wisconsin mess, among other things). What’s that got to do with the price of eggs in China? You’re supposed to be responding to my side remark (of April 1, 2011 @ 2:02 pm) that “you don't like the idea of balancing the budget on the backs of conservatives”, so unless you were one of those people, I fail to see how this reduces anything “to shards”. (Except for your credibility. But that was lost a long time ago.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“Do you have any clue how uninformed you sound? Other posters are laughing. Sure, strudel, good little party apparatchiks. That’s why there is a SEPARATE CAUCUS for the Tea Party from the Republican Caucus – because they’re all in ‘lock-step’!”
- Only the uninformed like you are laughing, and your opinion means little to me. Once again, though, we see you play one of your cute tricks: take an isolated sentence out-of-context from one of my comments (this time from April 1, 2011 @ 2:09 pm), ignore what I actually said, so you can try to “score points” with “cheap shots” against a “straw man”.
I was contrasting the Democrats (in accordance with Will Rogers’ famous remark about them not being “an organized political party”) with the conduct of the Republicans “during the past two years”. Let’s see, that would be when they filibustered just about anything and everything, with scarcely a defection, thus requiring super majorities in the Senate to get anything passed. (No shilly-shallying with majority rule for them!) I’d call that a track record Communist party apparatchiks would be proud of.
As for that Tea Party Caucus - how active was it in the Congress (especially the Senate) during “the past two years” (2009 and 2010)? Oh that’s right, according to Wikipedia the House Caucus was only founded in July of 2010, and the Senate version wasn’t until 2011! Guess they weren’t doing much of anything for most of “the past two years”! (Of course, today they dominate the Republicans in the House, which is now behaving like good little Tea party apparatchiks.)
P.S. - In case it escaped your attention, there are many different caucuses within the Democratic Party, and they don't "march to the same drummer", which is why the phrase "herding cats" applies.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
“Oops, strudel, not reading for understanding again are you? I simply answered your simplistic interpretation with one that demonstrates much greater depth.”
- And once again you play to your strengths (taking things out-of-context, making irrelevant non-responses, and taking cheap shots). Your “big business” remark was a completely unrelated ideological tirade to a sarcastic comment of mine (April 1, 2011 @ 12:47 pm), which merely suggested that since Republi-Cons like budget cuts so much, the Democrats should give them some they won’t like. Your response (April 1, 2011 @ 1:05 pm) was just another ideological rant: “. . . it's an ideological struggle between the big-government progressive left and American business.” Blah, blah, blah. A parrot shows more “depth” than that! At least when it says “Polly wanta cracker”, there’s some reality involved.
“ ‘try using a spelling and grammar checker some time.’ Really? Point out the error … OR SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!!!”
- My, that was an example of intelligent, reasoned discourse - NOT! I wasn’t making an “accusation” (thin-skinned are we?), just gently teasing you (egghead old pal). However, if you re-read the quote I was responding to, you’d realize that Congress is a “what”, not a “who”. Therefore, the sentence should have read more like this: “Congress is just a giant spectator which thinks it can actually do something.”
Sorry I can’t provide a specific example of a spelling mistake, you make so many of them.
More importantly, try developing a sense of humor that doesn’t involve mocking others. It may have escaped your notice, but I often mock myself! Can you say the same?
ecgberht on April 1, 2011 @ 3:41 pm wrote: “I would say there will continue to be a shortage of American jobs until the great leveling of global LABOR MARKETS is complete. . . . The American worker is going to have to accept lower pay and benefits because the law of supply and demand is requiring it.”
PART ONE
- Translation: until Americans are paid the same benefits and wages as third-world countries. Gee, I wonder why Republi-Cons never try to campaign on that idea?
“There are many factors impinging on the success of a country's economy . . . .”
- Yup, and not trying to operate on mindless ideology (specifically warmed over “Social Darwinism”) is one of those factors. You seem to be operating under the illusion that I believe “Labor” is pure and perfect, since I reject the Republi-Con ideology that the “free market” is “holy, pure, sacred, and perfect”. I don’t. I’m well aware that “Labor” has its flaws, like everything else in this universe.
“America has priced itself out of the labor market.”
- Oh, and why then are there other countries with companies that provide better wages and/or benefits for their workers, and yet are doing better? How is it we have a trade deficit with Europe and Japan (among others)? And how come their auto companies don’t seem to have the same problem paying American workers decent wages? (And let’s not forget, those “commie” Japanese actually limit the amount of pay and bonuses corporate executives make based on what they provide to the workers.) Just another example of how the theory of “laissez-faire” doesn’t match the facts. (By the way, I’m not suggesting we follow the Japanese example. I’m just pointing out things are more complex than your simplistic ideology allows.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
And, of course, you managed to completely ignore the main point of my comment (April 1, 2011 @ 2:35 pm): that America’s economic might (which ideologues like you love to credit the “free market” for) was actually the product (partly at least) of historical factors (accidents in a sense) that no longer apply.
You also ignore the fact that what I called our “golden age” (approximately 1945 - 1968) was definitely an era of “big government”!
P.S. - ever notice how that “law of supply and demand” doesn’t seem to operate with regard to corporate executives. What other group of employees do you know can run a company into the ground, and yet leave with their “golden parachutes” intact? Oh, wait, maybe there’s a limited supply of greedy idiots, and an unlimited supply of fools willing to hire them. Yeah, that works!
Idislikedianerehm on April 1, 2011 @ 5:21 pm wrote: “Diane is a cult of personality but she's an obvious lib when her guests use inflamatory language like the phrase I heard today. . . . ‘cop killing exploding bullets’ and she made no attempt to correct him or tone down the lie that was voiced. Bullets do not explode. They expand or fragment.”
Oh brother, talk about “political correctness”! Sorry, but we refuse to scrub our language of semantics that offend the NRA’s party line.
So, instead of “cop killing exploding bullets” you’d prefer “cop killing exanding and fragmenting bullets”? What’s the difference, as long as the “tool” gets the job done (killing cops).
Police use that expression you so dislike. Do you know why? Because of the 800 pound FACT you’re so desperate to ignore. The bullets in question are designed to pierce armored vests cops use to protect themselves, they have no other purpose. “Cop killing” fits them to a “T”.
Oh, and I guess I have to explain the obvious: the difference between “power tools like a skill saw or electric drill”, and guns. Those items only kill when used improperly in a way contrary to their manufacturer’s intention and design. In contrast, when used properly guns and bullets kill exactly as they are designed to do.
So, to correct another bit of empty NRA rhetoric: While it’s true “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, - that’s why people kill people with guns!
ecgberht on April 1, 2011 @ 9:51 pm wrote: “ ‘it's a matter of creating policies that encourage economy that works better for all.’ Congratulations, Drew. You're a socialist.”
Oh I just love it when Republi-Cons misuse that word, and mindlessly employ it as a general epithet. So, “creating policies that encourage economy that works better for all” is Socialism? How about the argument that “a rising tide lifts all boats” (not just yachts). I guess that’s socialism. Or how about the idea cutting taxes will boost the economy for everyone? More socialism? Or what about the idea that everyone will be better off without the “heavy hand of government”?
My apologies, I’ve been calling Reagan, his disciples and heirs, “Republi-Cons”. I see the error of my ways: they’re Socialists!
For the record, a socialist is someone who believes all means of production (land, factories, minerals, etc.) and all property should be held in common. There is a big difference between believing in “social programs” (such as public sanitation, a public Fire Department, public highways, public libraries, public education, etc.) and being a socialist.
P.S. - I don’t recall Drew Kelly calling for laws limiting what CEO’s get paid. He only pointed out that letting them get whatever they want hasn’t had the beneficial effects “laissez-faire” promises. But if that is his position then, again, let me state for the record I wouldn’t favor such a law, except for the corporations that received TARP funds. (But then, I think those companies should have been broken up. If something’s too big to fail, it’s too big to exist).
P.P.S. - See, eggie, I know the proper use of the apostrophe “s”. Though I’ll admit I’m fallible enough to sometimes make mistakes (typo's actually). When have you ever admitted a mistake?
cicero on April 1, 2011 @ 9:58 pm wrote: “All that NPR requires for them to know is that firearms are evil and so is the 2nd Amendment.”
Well, I guess I’ll never be a panelist on NPR, since I don’t think either of those things.
I do think firearms can too easily be used for evil (for reasons I’ve already stated). And I think reasonable restrictions and regulations on the ownership and use of guns are both wise and constitutional.
Guess what? So does the Supreme Court! I dislike the case of D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), but not because of its ultimate judgment (D.C. can’t ban handguns outright, but it can regulate them). Why? Because the reasoning employed by “Mr. original intent” (Scalia) makes a mockery of his claims to be conservative, to follow the Constitution, and epitomizes what’s wrong with “original intent”.
Scalia “rubbed out” the first half of the Second Amendment, and ruled it is meaningless. Sorry, folks, but whatever “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” might mean, it does mean something! Scalia has created a dangerous precedent, which will allow future judges to ignore any part of the Constitution they don’t like. Conservatives should have screamed loudest of all at that. Instead, their silence was deafening.
At let it be noted, Scalia did this to the one part of the Constitution which actually states the intent of a provision!
(By the way, do you know what part of the government the Constitution says is in charge of “organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia”? The U.S. Congress - Art. 1, Sec. 8, Paragraph 16.)
Drew Kelly on April 1, 2011 @ 11:47 pm wrote: “But at least you didn’t call me a Demo-prog (play on Republi-con)”.
On another web site, someone once proposed that as a counter-part to my “Republi-Con”, but they rejected it as not being eloquent. I agreed that the term sounded more like a barbecue implement!
P.S. - Just remember to capitalize the “C” in “Con”. I’m not trying to call Republicans con artists, as some seem to think. I’m differentiating “movement conservative” Republicans from regular Republicans and moderate Republicans (assuming there are any left).
ecgberht on April 2, 2011 @ 12:26 am wrote: “I think that might be better phrased as they believed in taxation to fund a few specific government duties (no where does the word ‘programs’ appear). Read Article 1, Section 8. And those duties were specific and limited.”
PART ONE
What you are applying is known as the “enumeration” argument, under which the government has only those powers (and we have only those rights) as are specifically and expressly enumerated in the Constitution. That argument was rejected even before the Constitution was ratified. See, for example, Federalist Paper number 44, and McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819).
The issue is too complex for “sound bites” and “bumper sticker” slogans (which all too often it’s reduced to). However, consider this: nowhere does the words “Air Force” appear either. So, how can Congress create one? Among the “enumerated powers” is the power to “raise and support armies” (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 12), and to “provide and maintain a navy” (Paragraph 13). As I’ve already noted, Congress has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, but there’s no mention of an “Air Force”. Worse, Paragraph 14 says Congress has the power “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces”!
Obviously, either an Air Force is beyond Congress’ powers, or its creation must come from a power that is more general in scope, that (by implication, not by express enumeration) allows such a branch of the military to exist. There is one: under Art. 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1 Congress has the power to ‘tax and spend’ in order “to provide for the common defense”. I doubt anyone will deny an Air Force does that.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
But what about those dreaded “social programs”? Is there a similar provision authorizing them? Well, yes. You see, I only quoted part of Art. 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1. I left out the next seven words. Actually, Congress has this Spending Power (as it’s known) “to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”. That’s something social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (etc.) certainly do. See, United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936), and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
P.S. - this also is why the question of the validity of the new health care law is not simply a matter of saying "it's not in the Constitution".
ecgberht on April 2, 2011 @ 12:26 am wrote:“The predecessor to the phrase ‘life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness’, was in fact ‘life, liberty, and property’ ".
Except, of course, only the former phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, therefore the latter is irrelevant. (Besides, the Declaration’s only legal effect was to make us independent of Great Britain. Nothing else is part of our law - though they are part of our ideals.)
“For the first 75 years of our country's history, only property owners could vote.”
- Perhaps (again it’s not that simple), but then for the first 90 years of our independence slavery was legal. That simply proves we don’t always live up to our ideals. The important thing is we keep trying, and get closer all the time.
P.S. - See, ecgberht, if you avoid insults and ad hominem attacks such as “strudel” and “bloviate”, I will too.
Drew Kelly on April 2, 2011 @ 8:18 am wrote: “Jefferson- suggested that taxes could be used to reduce 'the enormous inequality' between rich and poor”.
Drew (hope you don’t mind my using just your first name), when people reference things the Founders said, I ask if they could provide a source: where, when, the title of the book (or other source) they got it from. Not that I don’t trust you, but I like to read these things for myself. Plus, I’m making a collection of relevant quotes from the Founders.
So, if you could provide a source (or a link to where you got this from), I’d appreciate it.
Thanks.
Ditto for the Madison quote too, of course.
Thanks again.
ecgberht on April 2, 2011 @ 10:59 am wrote: “Jefferson DID say, . . . .”
Speaking of which: where, when, etc.?
strudel, a lot of blather, a lot of hypocrisy ("I avoid ad hominem" - like "scrambled eggs", "egghead", etc.) - now wait for it, here it comes ... "you did it first! WAAAHHH!!!" or "you can't take a joke" or "you took it out of context" (when I quote whole posts!). Anyway, a lot of blather to skim through so I'm just going to embarass you on one:
"general welfare of the United States”. That’s something social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (etc.) certainly do. "
No. They don't. "General Welfare" means that tax money is used for the General good (defense, roads, coining money, etc.) those are things that make sense for the Federal government to do rather than the individual states and that benefit EVERYONE. "General" welfare does not include making payments to ANY INDIVIDUAL. That's what all these programs do. That's why they are un-Constitutuional at the Federal level. The states can do what they wish within their state constitutions, but the Federal government cannot. I recommend the following which I wrote in 2007:
http://ecgbertsview.blogspot.com/2007/11/federal-social-programs-are-un....
Oh ... and one more thing ...
strudel said, 'However, if you re-read the quote I was responding to, you’d realize that Congress is a “what”, not a “who”. Therefore, the sentence should have read more like this: “Congress is just a giant spectator which thinks it can actually do something.”
No. It should have read just like I wrote it which is as follows,
"When the left allows it to be advantageous for businesses to create jobs here they will start doing it. Until then they will continue to rake profits from overseas. In the mean time, Congress is just a giant spectator who thinks they can actually do something."
Both "corporations" and "Congress" in this context are anthropomorphised (you can look that word up). That is why they become a WHO and not a WHAT.
And finally, I just can't let this one go with regard to the "Eat the Rich" video:
strudel wrote: "a post to a conservative’s commentary. Hate to break it to you, but opinion isn’t fact".
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. A "fact" is a TRUTH. Something does not become a "fact" because you agree with it and an "opinion" becasue you don't. The video is nothing BUT facts and figures. And I think that's what really galls you. You are really not very bright are you?