Well, given the degree of acumen shown in the individual case or rather the lack thereof, we cannot expect ability to discern whether a show is a news show, an opinion show, or a comedy show.
Therefore, if he were to try to follow your advice he’d probably just tune in to let’s say O’Reilly, get mad within 5 minutes and probably destroy his TV set, and then insist to everyone that right-wing bias of Fox News was something he’d proven for himself.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I listened to a professor from harvard the other day on the daily show …
[/quote]
LMAO. [/quote]
Uhhhh, why is that funny. Whatever the hell you think about him the man has talked one on one with some of the most intelligent and influential people in the world. He has talked with presidents, foreign leaders, cutting edge scientists, the worlds best authors, and more journalists than you could count. Who gives a fuck if i listened to a harvard professor on a show that is partly about comedy, i still heard what he had to say.[/quote]
Yep, you just keep framing yourself as the guy who gets his political perspective from “The Daily Show”. That’s awesome.[/quote]
Please… 5 out of 6 articles posted here come from fox news, the most ridiculously biased news channel on television. At least the daily show has the courtesy to call itself “fake news”.
And again, just because someone is on a comedy show doesn’t change the fact that they are who they are. A lot of very smart things are said on that show.[/quote]
While Fox News is biased, like any news company, all of the articles that I have seen posted here recently from Fox has been pure fact, with little to no bias. They seem to post articles about things that other companies do not want to, or seem to ignore; i.e. stuff about global warming, etc.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I listened to a professor from harvard the other day on the daily show …
[/quote]
LMAO. [/quote]
Uhhhh, why is that funny. Whatever the hell you think about him the man has talked one on one with some of the most intelligent and influential people in the world. He has talked with presidents, foreign leaders, cutting edge scientists, the worlds best authors, and more journalists than you could count. Who gives a fuck if i listened to a harvard professor on a show that is partly about comedy, i still heard what he had to say.[/quote]
Yep, you just keep framing yourself as the guy who gets his political perspective from “The Daily Show”. That’s awesome.[/quote]
Please… 5 out of 6 articles posted here come from fox news, the most ridiculously biased news channel on television. At least the daily show has the courtesy to call itself “fake news”.
And again, just because someone is on a comedy show doesn’t change the fact that they are who they are. A lot of very smart things are said on that show.[/quote]
Again, with the “Fox News” line, you seem to relish in confusing “News” with “Entertainment”. When you say “Fox News” is biased, what are you talking about specifically? Five of six articles? That’s impressive. Please post 3.
Yes, the “Daily Show” calls itself “fake news”, yet you feel compelled to use it as a primary source for your political cues. That’s as fascinating as it is entertaining.[/quote]
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/31/watchdog-bailouts-created-risk/
There’s a couple from the most active forums. i don’t have time to find more.
When i mention news, i’m talking mostly about the pundits but also about the official news channel. Regardless, both are biased. Here, the article about global warming is mostly a farce of investigative journalism because they claim that warming doesn’t correlate with environmental damage as shown by errors in a few studies. Because the largest area of research in climatology is devoted to understanding the detrimental effects of warming on the environment it seems absurd to suggests that global warming can be disproven by a few errors. Without any professional degree, I could literally find a dozen scholarly articles that refute the journalistic findings of this article. It’s pure old fashioned biased journalism. Of course that’s if you could call it journalism, fox is more comfortable finding evidence to support the conclusions they have already drawn.
In any case, mentioning the thoughts of a harvard professor would seem like a legitimate source to most people. I’m sorry you’re limited by your personal bias.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I listened to a professor from harvard the other day on the daily show …
[/quote]
LMAO. [/quote]
Uhhhh, why is that funny. Whatever the hell you think about him the man has talked one on one with some of the most intelligent and influential people in the world. He has talked with presidents, foreign leaders, cutting edge scientists, the worlds best authors, and more journalists than you could count. Who gives a fuck if i listened to a harvard professor on a show that is partly about comedy, i still heard what he had to say.[/quote]
Yep, you just keep framing yourself as the guy who gets his political perspective from “The Daily Show”. That’s awesome.[/quote]
Please… 5 out of 6 articles posted here come from fox news, the most ridiculously biased news channel on television. At least the daily show has the courtesy to call itself “fake news”.
And again, just because someone is on a comedy show doesn’t change the fact that they are who they are. A lot of very smart things are said on that show.[/quote]
Again, with the “Fox News” line, you seem to relish in confusing “News” with “Entertainment”. When you say “Fox News” is biased, what are you talking about specifically? Five of six articles? That’s impressive. Please post 3.
Yes, the “Daily Show” calls itself “fake news”, yet you feel compelled to use it as a primary source for your political cues. That’s as fascinating as it is entertaining.[/quote]
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/31/watchdog-bailouts-created-risk/
There’s a couple from the most active forums. i don’t have time to find more.
When i mention news, i’m talking mostly about the pundits but also about the official news channel. Regardless, both are biased. Here, the article about global warming is mostly a farce of investigative journalism because they claim that warming doesn’t correlate with environmental damage as shown by errors in a few studies. Because the largest area of research in climatology is devoted to understanding the detrimental effects of warming on the environment it seems absurd to suggests that global warming can be disproven by a few errors. Without any professional degree, I could literally find a dozen scholarly articles that refute the journalistic findings of this article. It’s pure old fashioned biased journalism. Of course that’s if you could call it journalism, fox is more comfortable finding evidence to support the conclusions they have already drawn.
In any case, mentioning the thoughts of a harvard professor would seem like a legitimate source to most people. I’m sorry you’re limited by your personal bias.[/quote]
B-b-b-b-b-ut, the first “biased” article you mentioned about “Global Warming” quotes a HARVARD PROFESSOR– you know, like you said – “… a harvard professor would seem like a legitimate source to most people.”
Incidentally, if you actually read the article, it’s talking about a Global Warming Report issued by the IPCC, not wholesale “Global Warming”, so please, remove or fix the bias (or, more accurately, your inaccuracy) in your post. You make it sound like the article is saying “Fox News says global warming doesn’t exist”-- that’s not what the article is about.
The second article had contributions (read: co-written) from the Associated Press. Why, they’re never biased, are they?
Seriously-- an article pointing out corruption and errors in IPCC, a corrupt, bias, agenda-driven, and error ridden organization? THAT’S what you have?
You’ll have to tell me what’s biased about the second one-- I didn’t bother to read since you didn’t bother to describe.
Tell me, does this NBC story on the same topic have bias?
http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=11854524
There is no inconsistency or error here at all.
To many or perhaps even most on the left, publicly presenting facts that are potentially damaging either to one of their leaders or one of their beloved causes is inherently an act of bias or even hate.
If you weren’t right-wing biased, you’d know to shut up and not put such things out there.
Really.
Hence, for example, the deep hatred for and endless accusations of bias by Fox News – which many of them can’t even stand to spell correctly. (Instead they must demonstrate their great cleverness.) When you might challenge them to point out an example in one of their news programs, and they cannot provide anything from one of their news programs or news articles so far as you can tell, what you are missing is that the charge of bias really comes from their presenting information which any good leftist would know is supposed to be relegated to the memory hole, and not allowed on the air or in print.
Presenting factual information that certain people with good credentials state adverse things about the IPCC counts as a biased act, because doing so harms a movement beloved by many on the left.
stop talking about fox news cnn, all that fucking garbage. Read the fucking wall street journal or Economist if you want to get your head out of your proverbial asses.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Actually, in 2007, the deficit was on track to being neutralized by 2012. Guess what’s changed since 2007. I’m sure Bush decided to sandbag the first 7 years and then REALLY fuck things up in 2008 so the Democratic elect would look even worse, huh?
[/quote]
“On track” if one could simply stop the business cycle, or if his policies actually had lead to “Sustained economic growth” as he was predicting (see your own link).
But were his predictions accurate? Was he really “on track?” There was something that started in December of 2007… what was that again?
Current deficits and debt were largely inherited and have further ballooned by the need to fight the current downturn, leaving the current administration with a herculean task. I agree that this task should be addressed. But to pretend that any administration could simply fix the incredible mess that was left to them within a year is pure ignorance.
[/quote]
Actually, the CBO predicted in 2007 that the deficit would fall to .7% of GDP by 2011 and then actually post a surplus of 1% by 2018. Those are from the CBO and not the White House. The fact that the CBO predicted SURPLUSES within 4 years of the end of Bush’s last term does little to support your “inherited debt” assertion.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter1.5.1.shtml
The fact of the matter is, and the trends in the current predictions show this, that the Obama administration has been piling on record amounts of debt since they took office. In 2012, when the original projection showed surplus, the current projection now shows a 600 billion dollar deficit. The current projection based on Obama’s budget also shows a steady rise in the deficit over the years following the end of his first term to 1.2 TRILLION in 2019. I somehow doubt that you guys are going to be able to pass off the “Bush did it” excuse to anyone with a brain 11 years after the man left the White House.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Actually, in 2007, the deficit was on track to being neutralized by 2012. Guess what’s changed since 2007. I’m sure Bush decided to sandbag the first 7 years and then REALLY fuck things up in 2008 so the Democratic elect would look even worse, huh?
[/quote]
“On track” if one could simply stop the business cycle, or if his policies actually had lead to “Sustained economic growth” as he was predicting (see your own link).
But were his predictions accurate? Was he really “on track?” There was something that started in December of 2007… what was that again?
Current deficits and debt were largely inherited and have further ballooned by the need to fight the current downturn, leaving the current administration with a herculean task. I agree that this task should be addressed. But to pretend that any administration could simply fix the incredible mess that was left to them within a year is pure ignorance.
[/quote]
The most reasonable post on this so far. I listened to a professor from harvard the other day on the daily show describing that the problems obama walked into were worse than any since FDR. Someone also descried that Kennedy was very similar to obama in his first year. Things will hopefully make giant leaps in one direction or the other this year.
[/quote]
And unfortunately we are going to go through a depression just like FDR put people in when he was in office.
The idea that these can’t be fixed in a timely manner of a year or so are wrong. All it takes is to check out the recession of 20-21, where they cut taxes and regulations. Contrast that with FDR, who put in the New deal He had a depression of almost a decade on his hands.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Actually, the CBO predicted in 2007 that the deficit would fall to .7% of GDP by 2011 and then actually post a surplus of 1% by 2018. Those are from the CBO and not the White House. The fact that the CBO predicted SURPLUSES within 4 years of the end of Bush’s last term does little to support your “inherited debt” assertion.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter1.5.1.shtml
The fact of the matter is, and the trends in the current predictions show this, that the Obama administration has been piling on record amounts of debt since they took office. In 2012, when the original projection showed surplus, the current projection now shows a 600 billion dollar deficit. The current projection based on Obama’s budget also shows a steady rise in the deficit over the years following the end of his first term to 1.2 TRILLION in 2019. I somehow doubt that you guys are going to be able to pass off the “Bush did it” excuse to anyone with a brain 11 years after the man left the White House. [/quote]
When GL, thefederalist, et al are 80 years old and their lumbago flares up, you can be sure they will be blaming Bush for it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Actually, the CBO predicted in 2007 that the deficit would fall to .7% of GDP by 2011 and then actually post a surplus of 1% by 2018. Those are from the CBO and not the White House. The fact that the CBO predicted SURPLUSES within 4 years of the end of Bush’s last term does little to support your “inherited debt” assertion.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter1.5.1.shtml
The fact of the matter is, and the trends in the current predictions show this, that the Obama administration has been piling on record amounts of debt since they took office. In 2012, when the original projection showed surplus, the current projection now shows a 600 billion dollar deficit. The current projection based on Obama’s budget also shows a steady rise in the deficit over the years following the end of his first term to 1.2 TRILLION in 2019. I somehow doubt that you guys are going to be able to pass off the “Bush did it” excuse to anyone with a brain 11 years after the man left the White House. [/quote]
When GL, thefederalist, et al are 80 years old and their lumbago flares up, you can be sure they will be blaming Bush for it.[/quote]
At first this seems like hyperbole, but after considering that the left is still blaming bush after spending all this money with more to be spent on the horizon… it becomes more feasible.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
stop talking about fox news cnn, all that fucking garbage. Read the fucking wall street journal or Economist if you want to get your head out of your proverbial asses.[/quote]
Fox News and the WSJ are owned by the same person. Just thought I would point that out. Also, I think I’ve seen some Murdoch articles in the WSJ.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I was in the USA during the election, and could tell that all the Obama fans are bound to be disappointed…
I’m really surprised that anyone left or right thinks that one president in one year can undo the work of the biggest imbecile/war criminal you guys ever elected.
Do right-wings have a better idea how to fix an unsustainable economy (that happens to be world’s largest), during the world recession induced by a mad man, while fighting two wars, in a totally corrupt representative system, so that you can’t even get your own party to support you?
Thought so.
Too bad McCain didn’t win. I’m sure Sarah Palin would do better, after he’d had a heart attack.[/quote]
How you fix an unsustainable economy is let it fall. Reagan did this and is known by anyone with a working brain as one of the greatest presidents in modern time.
McCain wouldn’t have done any better, most people who voted for him did so because he was the lesser of two evils. I am just happy that this inflationary depression we are going to enter into is going to be under the watchful eye of a progressive liberal. hopefully after its all done we will put every left wing nut job in the a mental health facility until they get better. Maybe teach them some basic economics while we are at it.
Obama has done more drone strike in Pakistan in one year then bush did in his last. Obama’s deficits are greater then anything Bush ever did. Bush did stimulus packages first, look what it created. Obama is threatening Iran with sanctions(does this seem similar to what Clinton did in Iraq?), sending special forces/shooting missiles into Yemen(without a declaration of war that is a war crime.) Its amazing how many liberal love Bush 3.
The bigger the deficits grow the more money is pumped into the system, the more money pumped into the system the greater the inflation grows. By allowing this man to do what he is doing the left has stolen the elderlies retirement and made the poor even worse off.
Any more talking points you would like me to strike down?
[/quote]
Right. Why do I have a feeling you’d be the first to cry about hardships of hard-working Americans, if millions and millions of them would be losing jobs?
McCain was not lesser of two evils. He is an old army vet, not really that educated about his job, but I liked him. The problem is that he had one foot in the grave, and an ignorant hockey mom next in line to nuclear codes.
Yes, Obama is wrong about army matters, that I admit. But dude, you haven’t declared war since WWII. You seriously didn’t know that?
How exactly is keeping their jobs make them worse-off?
FOX news??? I study journalism and you can take my word - they are the worst news media I’ve ever seen. Eastern Europe included. I could explain why, but I don’t think you’d believe it. Except if it’s published on FOX news.
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I study journalism …
[/quote]
LMAO! Uh, OK, so you’re completely objective and unbiased.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I study journalism …
[/quote]
LMAO! Uh, OK, so you’re completely objective and unbiased.[/quote]
Nobody is completely objective. But I do think I know my shit when it comes to media.
How’s this - I’m foreign, so I never watched FOX news before the age of 20. Then I started, gave it some thought, and rationally came to conclusion I posted.
Your point?
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I study journalism …
[/quote]
LMAO! Uh, OK, so you’re completely objective and unbiased.[/quote]
Nobody is completely objective. But I do think I know my shit when it comes to media.
How’s this - I’m foreign, so I never watched FOX news before the age of 20. Then I started, gave it some thought, and rationally came to conclusion I posted.
Your point?[/quote]
My point is that I don’t give a rat-fuck what your background is. If you’re going to make a claim, then back it up. Your claim “[I can expose FOX news], but you wouldn’t believe it!” makes me think you’re not much of a journalist-- isn’t that your job? Your credentials don’t mean shit. What you you back up in your posts does.
Funny how these discussions always end in two ways: 1. It’s Bush’s fault, and 2. Fox news is biased.
Let me say for the record that 1. I didn’t vote for or care much for Bush, and 2. I don’t even have a TV in my house, so I don’t even watch it. I treat its print sources (ie. the real news wing of Fox “Entertainment” News) with the critical eye I do with any information source.
Please, student, while you’re “proving” to us that FOX news is not worthy, give me 3 sources on general “media bias”. I mean, you’re a journalism student, certainly you’ve studied this.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Actually, in 2007, the deficit was on track to being neutralized by 2012. Guess what’s changed since 2007. I’m sure Bush decided to sandbag the first 7 years and then REALLY fuck things up in 2008 so the Democratic elect would look even worse, huh?
[/quote]
“On track” if one could simply stop the business cycle, or if his policies actually had lead to “Sustained economic growth” as he was predicting (see your own link).
But were his predictions accurate? Was he really “on track?” There was something that started in December of 2007… what was that again?
Current deficits and debt were largely inherited and have further ballooned by the need to fight the current downturn, leaving the current administration with a herculean task. I agree that this task should be addressed. But to pretend that any administration could simply fix the incredible mess that was left to them within a year is pure ignorance.
[/quote]
Actually, the CBO predicted in 2007 that the deficit would fall to .7% of GDP by 2011 and then actually post a surplus of 1% by 2018. Those are from the CBO and not the White House. The fact that the CBO predicted SURPLUSES within 4 years of the end of Bush’s last term does little to support your “inherited debt” assertion.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter1.5.1.shtml
The fact of the matter is, and the trends in the current predictions show this, that the Obama administration has been piling on record amounts of debt since they took office. In 2012, when the original projection showed surplus, the current projection now shows a 600 billion dollar deficit. The current projection based on Obama’s budget also shows a steady rise in the deficit over the years following the end of his first term to 1.2 TRILLION in 2019. I somehow doubt that you guys are going to be able to pass off the “Bush did it” excuse to anyone with a brain 11 years after the man left the White House. [/quote]
The CBO prediction made in 2007 before the economic and financial collapse was, simply put, wrong. Are you completely unaware of what occurred in 2008? Why are you choosing to ignore that year?
You have to look at what happened, not what you wish had happened or what was projected to have happened before the dual catastrophes. Don’t worry about “blame” for just a moment; think about what actually was.
…or don’t. Continue looking up projections from 2007 while ignoring the events of 2008 that you don’t like.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I study journalism …
[/quote]
LMAO! Uh, OK, so you’re completely objective and unbiased.[/quote]
Nobody is completely objective. But I do think I know my shit when it comes to media.
How’s this - I’m foreign, so I never watched FOX news before the age of 20. Then I started, gave it some thought, and rationally came to conclusion I posted.
Your point?[/quote]
My point is that I don’t give a rat-fuck what your background is. If you’re going to make a claim, then back it up. Your claim “[I can expose FOX news], but you wouldn’t believe it!” makes me think you’re not much of a journalist-- isn’t that your job? Your credentials don’t mean shit. What you you back up in your posts does.
Funny how these discussions always end in two ways: 1. It’s Bush’s fault, and 2. Fox news is biased.
Let me say for the record that 1. I didn’t vote for or care much for Bush, and 2. I don’t even have a TV in my house, so I don’t even watch it. I treat its print sources (ie. the real news wing of Fox “Entertainment” News) with the critical eye I do with any information source.
Please, student, while you’re “proving” to us that FOX news is not worthy, give me 3 sources on general “media bias”. I mean, you’re a journalism student, certainly you’ve studied this.
[/quote]
My bad for being polite…
In your colorful words: I don’t give a rat-fuck about some LMAO posting jerk-off who literary doesn’t know shit about the topic. When I said ‘you wouldn’t believe it’ it wasn’t because it’s unbelievable, it’s because most people who listen to Beck or Hannity have their head so far up their ass that it’s a waste of my time to change their minds.
I will not talk to you on equal grounds about media, because I know way more about it then you do. I won’t take diet advice from the fat, and I will not argue with the ignorant - being who they are proved them wrong already.
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
who listen to Beck or Hannity have their head so far up their ass that it’s a waste of my time to change their minds.
I will not talk to you on equal grounds about media, because I know way more about it then you do. I won’t take diet advice the fat, and I will not argue with the ignorant - being who they are proved them wrong already.[/quote]
Let’s dance. Prove your claim with your ‘facts’.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Actually, in 2007, the deficit was on track to being neutralized by 2012. Guess what’s changed since 2007. I’m sure Bush decided to sandbag the first 7 years and then REALLY fuck things up in 2008 so the Democratic elect would look even worse, huh?
[/quote]
“On track” if one could simply stop the business cycle, or if his policies actually had lead to “Sustained economic growth” as he was predicting (see your own link).
But were his predictions accurate? Was he really “on track?” There was something that started in December of 2007… what was that again?
Current deficits and debt were largely inherited and have further ballooned by the need to fight the current downturn, leaving the current administration with a herculean task. I agree that this task should be addressed. But to pretend that any administration could simply fix the incredible mess that was left to them within a year is pure ignorance.
[/quote]
Actually, the CBO predicted in 2007 that the deficit would fall to .7% of GDP by 2011 and then actually post a surplus of 1% by 2018. Those are from the CBO and not the White House. The fact that the CBO predicted SURPLUSES within 4 years of the end of Bush’s last term does little to support your “inherited debt” assertion.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter1.5.1.shtml
The fact of the matter is, and the trends in the current predictions show this, that the Obama administration has been piling on record amounts of debt since they took office. In 2012, when the original projection showed surplus, the current projection now shows a 600 billion dollar deficit. The current projection based on Obama’s budget also shows a steady rise in the deficit over the years following the end of his first term to 1.2 TRILLION in 2019. I somehow doubt that you guys are going to be able to pass off the “Bush did it” excuse to anyone with a brain 11 years after the man left the White House. [/quote]
The CBO prediction made in 2007 before the economic and financial collapse was, simply put, wrong. Are you completely unaware of what occurred in 2008? Why are you choosing to ignore that year?
You have to look at what happened, not what you wish had happened or what was projected to have happened before the dual catastrophes. Don’t worry about “blame” for just a moment; think about what actually was.
…or don’t. Continue looking up projections from 2007 while ignoring the events of 2008 that you don’t like. [/quote]
Oh, we can talk about the 2008 predictions too. While they are certainly less optimistic than the previous ones, they show deficits that are still roughly half of what we actually have. The current (January 09) predictions show 1.2 trillion in deficit this year and then fall to an average of 300 billion after 2010. Considering these projections don’t take into account the programs that Obama wants to create but hasn’t yet enacted, I don’t think you can give him any credit for cutting spending.
Remember, Obama approved more spending in Afghanistan, wants to create a massive new entitlement that will have an even higher price tag than the currently ballooning Medicare and Medicaid, wasted 1.4 billion dollars buying good assets at prices often above market value and then selling them for far less as scrap (Cash for clunkers). If you are going to claim that the inflated deficits are simply the result of inherited consequences, than you haven’t been paying attention.
There is nothing “simple” about any of the inherited crises. And you still seem to be ignoring them.
Are you actually claiming that “extending”* the tax cuts or putting more money into Afghanistan had nothing to do with 2008? I can’t imagine you are serious.
And I also find it interesting that you like the CBO numbers for 2007/8 but don’t like them when looking at the healthcare proposals. Almost as though you’re continuing to stick your head in the sand every time information you don’t like comes along.
*Interesting definition of “extend” btw