Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good grief homer.....pick a topic and stick with it man. Do you really think all the people who read the paper, read the online blogs. Most could care less what is said on here. But my God man, you are a rambling buffoon.

Posted by bluemule (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is correct, Clinton could have vetoed Nafta. Congress could have not passed Nafta...but Bush and the republican Congress could have had it repealed...and Obama and the democrats could have had it repealed too. None of the above occured because none of the above were looking out for everyday Americans! Third party baby!

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good article Homer!!

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 9, 2010 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Homer Campbell; My respect to you. Your thought and opinion are always taken into consideration by me. Thanks!

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Homer makes and has more sense than Jim Crawford anyday.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Might as well fuss about Monica Lewinsky, or Spiro Agnew's criminality, or whether Oswald acted alone. NAFTA turned out to be a bad idea. Clinton shouldn't have passed it. George Bush Sr. shouldn't have negotiated it. What old Homer calls "bunk" - the fact that the massive cost of Bush's wars weren't included in the budget - is, of course, completely true. In fact, instead of asking congress for that last supplemental appropriation to help pay for 2009, he left it for the new president to take care of. Classy. When you factor in veterans' benefits, the Iraq war alone will cost trillions. Homer considers this just another part of the big old Democratic spending spree. A debt we cannot sustain, harrumph harrumph. Homer, get a calculator.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What old Homer calls "bunk" - the fact that the massive cost of Bush's wars weren't included in the budget - is, of course, completely true.
----------------------------------
What Homer said was correct. The Iraq war was included in Bush's deficit. He never said anything about Bush's budget. You like making strawman arguements don't you Keta?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its "arguments."

The fact is, President Obama has been left with the worst deficit in modern U.S. history. So, if it were you, what would you do to fix the economy?

Cut taxes? Right, that doesn't save thousands of businesses that would shutter their doors due to the lenders closing down credit permanently. Bush, as has been proven by many financial experts, ALMOST got it right. He knew spending was necessary to prime the pump, but he didn't go far enough. He had to stay moderate and modest, knowing full well that his stimulus package would band-aid the problem, but would not help us get back on the right track. He also knew that he would be dropping this mess in someone else's lap, skirting the responsibility that would be laid on his legacy.

Obama stepped in and did the work that every one knew was required, but no one wanted to be responsible for. Had he not, millions more jobs would be lost, and America could have folded up financially.

The biggest overlooked part of this argument is the fact that, due to the recession and loss of jobs, revenue has dropped drastically. This skews the numbers, since there is less tax money coming in, therefore, driving up the deficit, making it look worse than it should have been. Obama wasn't the cause of this either. He was the recipient. And he stalled it. Fixing it will take years.

Ronald Reagan was the spending KING. Bush is on record as saying that Reagan proved that a deficit doesn't matter.

Defense spending that tops that of the rest of the world is ridiculous. Homeless rates that make us look like a 3rd world country is also ridiculous.

Imagine if the money spent on these wars, just the part actually rationed to the defense department, was used for infrastructure projects in the states. Clean energy technology. Power grid updates. Efficiency projects. Where would we be in the jobs and revenue status's then?

Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He meant budget - we're talking Homer here. Why would he point out that a war financed with deficit spending was part of the deficit? Hello? I'm pretty sure he's arguing against the fact that Bush's wars were unaccounted for in the budget. Hard to tell.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its also poignant to point out that the CBO estimated that even before President Obama did ANYTHING, that this years debt would exceed 1.2 trillion just from the loss of revenue and spending that took place before he took office.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on March 9, 2010 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The loss of revenue because Democrats took control of the Congress and businesses knew darn well what would happen. Name for me one spending bill that Obama voted against when he was in the Senate?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Name one spending bill Dubya vetoed.....

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neosis, Once again your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You have the audacity to accuse someone else of making “strawman arguments”? If making straw man arguments was an Olympic sport, you would win the gold. A straw man argument is not when someone states a fact that you wish wasn’t true. A straw man argument is where someone creates an argument based on something that was never said or an argument based on misrepresentation of what was said. Take for instance the Straw man argument Homer made.

Mr. Kincaid’s statement
“I will begin with your claim that Bill Clinton “enacted NAFTA.” While it is true that it was enacted under Clinton, what you failed to mention is that it was already approved and signed by George H.W. Bush, who tried to get it completed and enacted prior to leaving office”

Homer’s straw man argument
“I was challenged for my letter stating that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Well, he did, although he had enough votes to stop it.”

See how that worked, Homer insinuated that Mr. Kincaid had challenged him on the accuracy of who signed NAFTA into law. It is obvious that Mr. Kincaid had conceded the point that it enacted under Clinton, but it did not deter Homer from making a straw man argument based on the assertion that Mr. Kincaid had denied it was enacted under Clinton.

That is a straw man argument. Now that you know what a straw man argument is, you can call them all out.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Neosis, For you constant insistence that the Iraq war is included in the deficit totals or in Bush’s budget, I again ask you to take a look at what Republican Ron Paul said on this subject - http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=1...... Here is a quote from that article “Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit figures. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called "supplemental" spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.” Do you now see the part that says it is not reflected in the budget or deficit figure?
At some point the fact that much of this spending was NOT included in the budget or deficit should get in the way of your opinion that it was. jonferguson also gave you links on this very subject. How much crow on this subject can you eat? I would think you should be full by now. Now don’t go copy and paste something out of the Heritage Foundations web site again, like you did when you were insisting that you don’t use conservative biased sources. I still haven’t stopped laughing over that one

Posted by crackerjack (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great article Homer!

Posted by bklibrary (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your Hee Haw of ignorance familly is praising your out house preaching in the paper Homer. Homer has lied in many accounts in the TrI State newspapers I have read many of them and he is the King of Contradiction. So go ahead brothers of stead fast lightheadedness condone his Richard Nixon and Jim Baker tactics because he is a liar and a Zell Miller want to be. Homer is about 160 years to late because he would have fit real well as an owner of a nice plantation in the south and his sideline of preaching the gospel on Sunday.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this guy really a preacher???

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, you are right on the Iraq war/deficit/national debt. I found a more reliable source...Wikipedia:

Differences between the annual deficit and annual change in the national debt include the treatment of the surplus Social Security payroll tax revenues (which increase the debt but not the deficit), supplemental appropriations for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and earmarks

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jonferguson

Its "arguments."
--------------------

You know what they say about people living in glass houses...

Posted by jonferguson ... And, instaed of telling people to "go to school" "get a better job"...

Uh Jon... It's "instead"

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"like you did when you were insisting that you don’t use conservative biased sources."
------------------------

Neo old bud, welcome back!!! I guess you came out OK during the recent crackdown.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on March 10, 2010 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Neo, in regards to Mr. Kincaid’s statement:

“I will begin with your claim that Bill Clinton “enacted NAFTA.” While it is true that it was enacted under Clinton, what you failed to mention is that it was already approved and signed by George H.W. Bush, who tried to get it completed and enacted prior to leaving office”

So what that Bush signed the treaty, Homer was correct. Clinton signed it and no arm twisting was needed.

OBTW... Welcome back. I welcome somebody who is at least somewhat factual and knows what they are talking about, unlike those lightweights Jon and Keta.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on March 11, 2010 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So what......great argument.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on March 11, 2010 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love that I am seen as enough of a threat to be mentioned personally by the King of Crap. I feel so special

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 11, 2010 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, at first I didn’t get the “Neo” thing but then I realized my dyslexia problem presenting itself when I spelled your name. It probably wouldn’t be hard to find misspelling, misplaced punctuation, dangling participles, wrong tense and the rest in my writing, that is why I try not to make an issue out of it when some else does it. My apologies, I will try to do better :)

The last thing I have to take issue with is you again stating that Homer was correct concerning Clinton signing NAFTA. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THIS OR HAS DISPUTED THIS. He is, you are, and will always be correct as to the accuracy of his statement that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. The statement Mr. Kincaid made acknowledged the accuracy in Homer’s statement concerning who signed NAFTA into law, and went on with comments suggesting that Homer had given a one sided view, and it was with considerable Republican support that allowed Clinton to enact NAFTA. Mr. Kincaid went on to show voting records that showed a higher percentage of Republican support and a lower support among Democrats. I don’t care for NAFTA either, but placing the blame squarely on Clinton was disingenuous. Homer then begins shadow boxing in his rebuttal, as if he had been challenged on the accuracy of who signed NAFTA.

This is a common debate tactic that fools weak minded people.
#1) Distort your opponent position until it is a fabrication.
#2) Take on the fabrication.
#3) Superficially win the argument by disproving the fabrication.

Ta-da You just created the illusion that you are mopping the floor with someone using this fallacy. You are plenty bright enough to recognize this little slight of hand when it serves your purposes. I have seen you do it. (My backhanded compliment to you)

I find a lot to like in the comments by jonferguson and Keta, but I do appreciate the backhanded complement (“who is at least somewhat factual “) Thanks Noesis!

Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on March 12, 2010 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now, as for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and most of Europe thought the same and publicly said so.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Since when do we care what Tony Blair and the rest of Europe thinks? LOL. Nice try, though.

Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on March 12, 2010 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, I'm not the only one who believes that as long as "everybody else" is ignorant about an issue too, then invading a country is okay, right? Weird stuff to me. That argument would've never worked when I was a kid. Let alone a superpower with nuclear capabilities. Hmmm...

Childish stuff.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 12, 2010 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GlennBennett; I think it would behoove you to be a little more humble and cautious and not be carried away by your own self importance, you are beginning to sound a lot like Noesis. It is not important to win an argument. What is important, is to seek and to find the truth for the betterment of all mankind and we all need to work together in order to achieve this. Your intellectual abilities are obvious and to be appreciated and my compliments to you on these abilities. Noesis and GlennBennett need to look and search a little more deeply.

Posted by SPO (anonymous) on March 12, 2010 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If GlennBennett and Noesis did look and search a little more deeply, you'd find fault with that too. You may need to search a little more deeply yourself. It seems as if GlennBennett must know what he's talking about for you to want him curb it, so to speak. It appears that if he corrects statements that are out of order and just plain wrong, you don't want him to point it out. Maybe, just maybe, you may need to be a little more humble and cautious about your self importance. Why not leave them alone.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 12, 2010 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SPO; Thank you for calling this to my attention although I am quite aware of my own self limitations. I do need to search a little more deeply and I do need to be a little more humble and cautious about my own self importance. Thank you for your care and concern.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mick, I accept your recommendation to seek humility in my writing, ironically, you seem to equate your years of “seeking of the truth” with truth itself. In the last few days you have directly accused me of feeling self important, indifferent to murder, materialistic and have now compared me to Noesis. I can take the big feeling, materialistic and even the murder accusations, but comparing me to Noesis is hitting below the belt.:) ( just playing Noesis, I can take that too) I believe you to be well meaning, that is why I haven’t taken issue with you much. I have seen you “respect” distortions of the truth and even take a few liberties yourself. The accusations that Homer and Noesis makes are not new, but something we have seen repeated in history. These distortions and McCarthyism style tactics are very effective and take considerable room to dispute. When terms like “communist” are thrown around frivolously, it may take some ink to try to correct the damage. When people are scared to be called names, they may find it easier to just back down. It don’t work with me Mick, and from the looks of things, it doesn’t work with a lot of people on here. I find it more rewarding to take on the wild allegations point by point. Why would an enlighten guy like yourself, not be more willing to spend their time correcting obvious reckless distortions instead of having “respect” for them? Why instead spend your time trying to show shortfalls in my character? Homer’s brand of coupling Conservative propaganda with Christianity is disturbing to me, and should be disturbing to all Christians that oppose having the gospel of Jesus Christ perverted this way. It seems that you have found it acceptable for others to misreport and even boldly lie, as long as it furthers some other social agenda. That brand is not for me, and it should not be for you either.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 13, 2010 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GlennBennett; I respect and take serious all opinions, distorted or not because the individuals opinion is what they believe and think is correct. I am not trying to show shortfalls in your character but in some of your opinions. I am sorry I hurt your feelings. I expected a man of your capabilities to be able to take a little constructive criticism. I value and appreciate your efforts in combating and refuting distortions of the TRUTH. Glenn; your comments " I haven't taken issue with you much" and "even take a few liberties yourself" (pertaining to the truth) please do not hesitate to take issue with me or call my attention when I take liberties with the truth. You are doing me no favor when you let this slide. Your view and opinion of Homer, Noesis (I hope he doesn't start throwing Polls at me) and you forgot 79Tiger are right on the money and I couldn't agree more. Thank you for pointing out some of my shortfalls. I do strongly feel the Democratic Party has let the American people down. They have joined the Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen of The Grand Old Party in their inepitude,

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 13, 2010 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GlennBennett; As a PS: I enjoyed your comment "These distortions and McCarthyism style tactics are very effective and take considerable room to dispute". A good observation, my compliments.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Mick., my feelings wasn’t hurt a bit, that’s why I put in the little sideways smile. :)

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My complements to AlisonMiller on the analogy concerning the Iraq War and the values we were all taught as a child. That is right on and I would like to borrow that the next time I hear that argument. Also, thanks to SPO!

Posted by kce (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are some FACTS to ponder as your point fingers at Homer's preaching:

On a recent Glenn Beck Show, he had a graph that illustrated the percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages discussed by Mr. Beck.

T. Roosevelt........ 38%
Taft..................40%
Wilson ..............52%
Harding..............49%
Coolidge.............48%
Hoover...............42%
F. Roosevelt.........50%
Truman...............50%
Eisenhower.......... 57%
Kennedy..............30%
Johnson...............47%
Nixon................53%
Ford..................42%
Carter...............32%
Reagan...............56%
GH Bush..............51%
Clinton ...............39%
GW Bush...............55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is ..............

Obama.................8% !!!

Yep! That's right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society...the one with the most successful economic system in world history... stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had one??!

And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers.! They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs.....or as "community organizers" ..when they should have been in an employment line.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 13, 2010 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And how could we doubt Glenn Beck's numbers? He oozes integrity! Seriously, I became a Glenn Beck fan for a few minutes last week because of the sheer entertainment value of the Eric Massa interview, highlights of which were everywhere, wall-to-wall, for several days. Beck's frustration when Massa refused to manufacture any nefarious Democratic conspiracies, his shock when Massa started cheerleading for campaign finance reform and suggested that Beck stop calling people "socialist" and "communist" - priceless. To his credit, Beck didn't cry, which isn't always the case. The "percentages discussed by Mr. Beck" are nonsense, of course, but the larger point is the assumption that anything accomplished outside of corporate America is without value. Reagan's years as a mediocre actor, Poppy Bush's heavily subsidized push to become an oil millionaire, that's good stuff. The time Obama spent working in public housing projects for ten thousand dollars a year makes no sense to the Glenn Becks of the world. Neither does the fact that Obama then went to Harvard, became a civil rights lawyer and taught at the University of Chicago law school. Or as kce, parroting Glenn Beck, would describe it, "academia". Those elites and their knowledge - booo! Who needs it? And I can't help pointing out that if John McCain had had a little community organizing talent, HE'D be the leader of the free world today, instead of fighting for his political life out in Arizona, defending his senate seat against a comical hack, a teabagger. Painful.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 14, 2010 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kce, What possible relevance does the twisted logic in Glenn Beck’s supposed “Facts” have to do with “Homer’s preaching”? Is this intended as justification for Homer distorting the truth? The Glenn Beck show is designed to appeal to those that see intellect and education as an elitist flaw, and does he ever have a following around here. As keta pointed out, Glenn Beck “ just oozes integrity”. Anyone that is in the slightest way inclined to accept this nonsense as fact, I invite you to read the following Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact dissections of how information was omitted, twisted and subjectively included or excluded to arrive at these shocking “facts”. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/... . This was given the worst rating. False. Is this foolishness really the best you have?

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 14, 2010 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kce; I found the graph you shared with us rather interesting and there is food for thought, although, the leaders and CEO's in the private sector have not been doing such a hot job the last several years also there is room for improvement in Education and Government on all levels.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 14, 2010 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, lord. Mick, do you know who kce is talking about? The guy with the graph is Glenn Beck, the nut with the chalkboard he uses as a visual aid to illustrate his paranoid conspiracy theories. He draws big swoopy lines connecting the president to various foul characters, or to prove that some painting or statue is secretly a celebration of Marxism, just the silliest guilt-by-association bull imaginable, the kind of nonsense only FOX viewers can watch without laughing out loud. He gets all sweaty and crazy, or tearful and earnest - he's a comedian, for heaven's sake. His crazed rants can be called a lot of things, but "food for thought" isn't one of them. Your Zen attitude is admirable, but it's OK to call a spade a spade.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 14, 2010 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

keta; I concur with your thoughts on Glenn Beck (and I really dislike him) but I find it rather difficult to dismiss without consideration another persons viewpoint or opinion, whether I agree with them or not. Pertaining to the graph, is it possible that it could be correct and if so, that is interesting. keta; I admire and respect your opinion and in particular the way you express it. You lost me on the Zen attitude, sorry for my lack of knowledge. I appreciated your comment "but it's OK to call a spade a spade", very appropriate. I had a teacher who once told me, the best way to express your feelings was by using some good old fashion Anglo Saxon slang.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 14, 2010 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mick, you have some good insight and are the most considerate one that posts on here. But come on, you find this hogwash “interesting”? I suppose a train wreck can be “interesting” , but it sure looks like your lending credibility to some of this ridiculous stuff. If I was to express my opinion that bluegrass grows well in the desert or that the brain pumps blood through our circulatory system, would you respect that opinion? Would you find my claims “interesting” or maybe “food for thought” . That stuff kce is pedaling is poison for thought, and surely you are aware of it. For an opinion to have the slightest bit of validity, it must be rooted in fact. Did this really pass your threshold for truth? Don’t know if you mean to be signing on to some of this stuff, but your comments sure look as though you are condoning these comments.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 14, 2010 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

right on keta

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 15, 2010 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GlennBennett; Are you saying the graph kce presented from the Glenn Beck Show presenting the percentage of each past presidents cabinet members who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet is incorrect?

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 15, 2010 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn; As a PS: You read my previous post but I fear you did not comprehend it. My comment was "Pertaining to the graph, is it possible that it could be correct and if so, that is interesting". I hope this clarifies my position for you.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 15, 2010 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn; As a second PS: A train wreck can be interesting from the perception of trying to figure out the cause, Bluegrass can grow in the desert if you water it and if the Brain did not send singles to the Heart to pump the blood through our circulatory system it would not do it. Interesting, don't you think?

Posted by SPO (anonymous) on March 15, 2010 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My goodness mickakers you must be the biggest PSer on here, kinda like Glenn Beck. You don't make a bit of sense. I bet you even use Vick's Salve to make yourself cry like he does.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 15, 2010 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mick, Of course I am saying it is inaccurate. My post had a link that explains the gymnastics someone would have to go through to come to such ridiculous conclusions. You might consider taking your own advise and not try to win this one. PLEASE take the time to know what you appear to be endorsing. Click on this link http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/...
I thought this might be necessary for one of the regular republican propaganda spreaders, but you are better than this.

Posted by GlennBennett (anonymous) on March 15, 2010 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And as for "Interesting, don't you think?" NOT IN THE LEAST - I prefer not to have to sift through a mountain of bulls**t to arrive at something that is so far reaching.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 16, 2010 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GlennBennett & SPO; Thank you both for the information and remarks. It is always a learning experience to see how others think and react. It is obvious you both are intelligent, knowledgeable, insightful and cultured individuals. My compliments.

Posted by SPO (anonymous) on March 16, 2010 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mickakers: ditto!!

Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 16, 2010 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to see network news organizations call FOX "news" out, or at least call it what it is; the propaganda arm of the right wing of the republican party. It's their job to point out the al Jazeera quality they have - to publicize obvious untruths and exaggerations. They couldn't get away with this stuff if regular news outlets didn't leave them alone, and regular news outlets aren't supposed to leave that kind of thing alone.