Republicans are trying to do the right thing and that is do what they were hired for.
if spending is 3 and income is 1, then the right thing to do is balance those so s=2, i=2. this is how families do it. the job of the republicans is to decrease both, after they are balanced. democrats have the opposite job, but both parties should be working to shrink the gap right now. maybe im stupid and oversimplifying it, but to me this is a clear goal. after that we can argue about which way we need the government to go.
To put in an ultra conservative mandate in 2010 to stop government and bailouts
without the bank bailouts, everyone's bank balance would be zero. with the bank bailouts, we got to keep our money (yeah i know how it sounds, but i think its a true statement) and the government made a nice profit on those loans. i balked at the auto bailouts, but i cant argue with the result. mostly paid back, and lots of jobs.
i've watched enough law and order to know that a body of evidence consisting solely of co-conspirator testimony does not meet the burden of proof. but the USADA is not held to this higher standard. i smell a spin-off.
law & order: ADA. they make the rules and enforce them
It already has. Eyewitness testimony can often trump scientific results. Scientific results come with a margin of error, eyewitness testimony does not.
somehow (just speculating here), im guessing that does not come into play here.
it would be nice to see consistent rules being followed, regardless of what i actually think happened (knowing no facts). i tend to believe armstrong's characterization of the USADA's vendetta against him. it sorta reminds me of the RICO statute.
this doesnt seem like a good solution for the ailing news sites. murdoch has been beating this drum for a while in the US, and nobody is listening.
however, the sites producing content are not getting compensation for doing so, is this just a paradigm shift, or can something be done to protect some of their revenue?