CommentsDisplaying starsfan22's 10 most recent comments.

Harvard Studies the Tea Party

March 18, 2013 at 12:15am

It wasn’t a “Harvard study” but produced by the American Enterprise Institute. Two of the authors are from the Harvard Kennedy School.
Link to the study: http://www.aei.org/files/2012/12/18/-veuger-tea-party-working-paper_095614741243.pdf
MSNBC’s ‘propaganda sundae’

February 25, 2013 at 12:30pm

Where are the conservative voices on MSNBC to counter the progressive commenters? Fox has Juan Williams, Kristen Powers, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill, Bob Beckel, and others. MSNBC has — who? — Joe Scarborough? SE Cupp is on once in a while, which must be refreshing for their viewers: An actual live splash of common sense and reality!
‘The F**k I am…I’m Not F**king Kidding’: CBS White House Correspondent Goes on Odd, Profane Twitter Rant

February 12, 2013 at 12:48am

In reply to DontCry.

Here you go Crybaby. We breathlessly await your apology.
http://www.theblaze.com/the-wire/18177917/former-fla-gop-chief-pleads-guilty-before-trial/
Megyn Kelly Challenges Professor Who Wants America to ‘Give Up’ U.S. Constitution (Plus: Judge Napolitano Reacts!)

January 7, 2013 at 11:06am

In reply to Al J Zira.

The correct term might be “oligarchy” — rule by a few. Like most Statist governments with a strong central government ruling by fiat — like 1939 Germany, 1920 Russia, 1948 China, or even 1776 England — there would be a core of elites which seek to run everything. Wait, sort of like the Democrats now!
Obama: More Tax Increases Possible to Reduce the Deficit

January 5, 2013 at 4:48pm

In reply to beekeeper.

Yes, we can now be sure he has no intention of ever making this a “balanced approach” after the last-minute Senate bill included $600 Billion in revenue (over the next 10 years) and only $15 Billion in spending reductions, also over the next 10 yrs. That’s a 1:40 ratio, and the spending reductions amount to a drop in the bucket. His “balanced approach” is smoke, mirrors and sham.
Obama: More Tax Increases Possible to Reduce the Deficit

January 5, 2013 at 4:45pm

In reply to woodyee.

@BUM THROWER: Are you serious? If so, you don’t understand math. If ALL of the income was confiscated from the top 2% — just take 100% of it — that would be about $700 Billion, roughly HALF of the deficit. Not half of federal spending, which is $3.5 Trillion — half of the $1.2 trillion deficit. So if the problem is income, then dear sir, they are going to come for 35% of YOUR income. Oh, it’s not “elementary” now, is it?
The Budget Deficit Grew How Much Last Month?

December 13, 2012 at 1:04am

In reply to wordsofwisdom.

It now makes sense the Senate refused to pass a budget since 2009. It kept the ‘con’ from becoming obvious: The FY 2009 budget was increased by $800 Billion for the so-called Stimulus Bill. Every fiscal cycle thereafter included this spike in spending so that instead of maintaining $3 Trillion spending level, as in 2008, we’re now running over the $4 Trillion mark for EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER. Granted there would still be a deficit because revenues dropped in 2009, meaning there should have been a concomitant reduction in spending in the erstwhile budgets, but not a trillion dollars worth.
Myths From D.C. Part 1: ‘We Just Need More Revenue’

December 12, 2012 at 11:57pm

This explains why the Senate refused to pass a budget since 2009: In doing so the spending level of FY 2009 (which spiked with the so-called Stimulus Bill) could be continued unabated over the next several years. Spending SHOULD have returned to the FY 2008 level, about $3 Trillion per year. Of course, that is still too high with respect to the revenues received, so there should have been concomitant reductions even so.
See These People Fail Miserably at a Basic Christmas Quiz: ‘Where Was Jesus Born?’

December 7, 2012 at 12:02pm

Christ was born in the time of the Roman-decreed census which was in autumn, and the shepherds were still “in the fields with their flocks” — certainly not in December — perhaps October? No one is certain.
Also, the Georgian calendar missed on the year of His birth by four years, so this is closer to 2016 A.D., if one wanted to be precise. Machs nix.
See These People Fail Miserably at a Basic Christmas Quiz: ‘Where Was Jesus Born?’

December 7, 2012 at 11:53am

Could we avoid calling the Three Kings “astrologers?” They were early ASTRONOMERS. (The first is a pseudo-science.) I thought they were from Persia, as O’Reilly said, but I learned from Watters they traveled variously from Persia, Arabia and India, there likely being more than just three. And yes, they didn’t arrive until Jesus was 2 or 3, taking that long after seeing the “star,” which does have some historical validity, being either a providential and unique cluster of stars or perhaps a super nova which was described by others about that time.