i dont know whats worse: the blatant bullshit this idiot spews, or the idiot who modded him insightful.
of course, thats assuming he's not just sock puppet modding his own comments, which im already half convinced he does.

no one with more than a single brain cell should be capable of stating or reading the words

let alone be taken seriously and modded up for saying it.

theres also the "universal health care" presented once again as if the idea is a brand new concept never before tried, and his once again showing his support for the ownership of politicians by those with the most "speech".

oh fuck off troll.

your bigotry is already well noted, you dont have to reinforce it every day.

"Interesting" because its the opposite of what the majority of the Democrats espouse as they give Wall Street it's daily reach-around.

He cleaned up Bush's fuckups, and you still find a way to complain about it.

No, you just proved you dont economic well.

Bullshit.

Clinton (both of them) is a centrist, a "new democrat", almost identical politically to the moderate republicans of the 50s, with the biggest exceptions being things like gay rights. He was only "liberal" in comparison to the extreme conservatism the GOP has carved out for itself as it pushed ever more rightward.

Mostly cleaned up Bush's mess.

Probably not.

But he, along with Warren raising a ruckus in the Senate, can pull her to the left out of her overly wall street friendly safe zone.

we're not.
specifically because of the programs we created since the 1930s.

without those programs the 2008 shitstorm would have made the 1930s look like a damp fart.

but the programs did their job: they arrested the fall and kept money moving in the system and reduced the severity of the crash.

how much do they pay you to write this shit for them?

cause there is only one tax system in the country right?

cause there's no system of other taxes that disproportionately affect poor and low income people,
causing them to pay a far higher percentage of their income in overall taxation, right?

(idiot)

cause lord knows its not like social democratic policies have EVER been tried before, right?

just like guns are a totally unique problem to the US that no country has ever faced or solved before, right?

or healthcare?
or border policies?
or telecom regulations?

no, you're right. these are totallly unique things never before seen by anyone except the US.

http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
http://archives.politicususa.c...

Why do these people act so shock that the agency that is largely responsible for space holds most of the assets in space, even if theose assets ultimately complement other agencies? I thought cooperation between agencies is a good thing? (Or should scientific research have the sort of systemic walls between agencies that let to the intelligence failure known as 9/11 ??)

NASA has the bulk of space based sensors monitoring the Earth.
This is of course, completely logical.
Even for assets actually owned by other agencies, they still interact and support them, particularly in the launching and maintaining aspects.

But NASA has the bulk. So the gameplan here lays itself out. First they reduce NASA's earth monitoring capability. Note they dont kill it outright...they rarely do. First you reduce its capability and effectiveness to justify further cuts in the future. And then you just never replace that capability in the agencies they argued should have it.

Such as:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

We know this is the game plan, because the GOP has -already tried- to interfere with NOAA's earth monitoring and climate research capabilities, and defund it's climate research. Whereas with NASA They claim that work is best left to NOAA, when talking about NOAA they instead claim that NOAA's true mission is "weather forecasting", not "climate research", as if understanding the bigger picture better and monitoring the planet wouldn't improve the ability to predict weather to as a byproduct.