I also remember telling people over and over how this was going to be a huge loss since GM would never be able to pay it back and every liberal democrat crawled out from under every rock saying that this was going to be a great profit and win. NOW ... now its "Oh, we never meant to make a profit." Yeah, just like if I liked my health care / doctor I could keep it. Just wait till the 2014 elections ...

From the summary: $49.5-billion bailout of the automaker begun in late 2008 under former President George W. Bush.

Unless you know a lot of liberal democrats that were GW Bush fans...

If he or Edward Snowden ever land on American soil again, they'll be thrown in jail before the TSA even has a chance to harass them.

These days you don't even need to land...

They ARE exempt from the EPA clean air and clean water acts.

No, they actually aren't.

The mainstream media had (IMHO thankfully) a bit of a hate-on for Bush, so every little thing his administration did wrong was broadcast loud and clear.

Except for...you know... the whole fraudulent run-up to the Iraq war.

Contaminated well water is used for drinking water for nearby cities and towns. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.

Please provide a citation to a single case of groundwater contamination shown to be a result of fracking.

Luckily, all of the WP eight users on the planet are under this large radio-proof dome currently so everything should be OK.

Tells me that one of you has a sense of humor.

The summary alleges that there is little empirical evidence to suggest that foreign engineers displace American engineers as a whole.

Perhaps if you wish to argue agains that statement you could provide some empirical evidence to suggest that foreign engineers displace American engineers as a whole.

Yes.

Kind of like a historical/political example of the butterfly effect.

I think the whole bombing spree thing might have damaged his credibility a bit...

The link in this article references the UW Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences in what appears to be a peer reviewed paper.

Your link references some dude's op-ed.

I know which source I would tend to believe more...

"Both" sides use their cherry-picked facts to justify government action to back them not realizing every government action is actually a loss for both sides.

And you use your cherry-picked facts to justify your ideology despite that it is trivially easy to point to a positive action by a government.

That sentence quoting SCOTUS says nothing about "non-profit."

Non-profit is literally in bold in that sentence!

Or you're a tea party supporter trying to start a nonprofit.

Or a political advocacy group illegally trying to file as a non-profit.