Great news about Roxana Seberi.

the sterotypical welfare person is a single black mother who keeps pumping out babies to increase the size of her welfare check. So they need to be charged-punished for these kits to prevent further incentives to reproduce.

Isn't that the way the Texcons think?

Can you fix the linkage?

Depress wages as much as possible. Hire people on a temporary basis or part time basis so they don't expect pensions, 401ks, health care insurance, and live in fear of being laid off. The last thing Corporations want today is loyalty.

That's the basics

so now then wich is it ? is it now general petraeus? or general betray us,were still being led by the nose by the same war whores are we not?

Marcy Winograd claims to be "A Jew for Peace", but she's still an AIPAC ring kisser and I do not believe John Amato would be.

John, how about having Marcy Winograd on C&L for a little Q&A regarding her positions on the various issues? I'd like to know how she feels about the Palestinians rights to return to the pre-'67 borders? I'd like to know if she thinks Israel should be forced by the U.N to comply with over 100 resolutions it has chosen to ignore. I'd like to know her position on Israel's 300 nuclear weapons and delivery systems? About Israel's defiance toward the Palestinians and Iran?

I don't trust her any more than Harman.

I hope John Amato throws his hat in the ring now against Winograd. Although I'm in Mass. right now working on a project, my home base is the 36th C.D. and I'd vote for John Amato any day over Marcy Winograd.

Here's an example of an Israeli Congressional snake I doubt Marcy Winograd would have the guts to cross. Joe Lieberman. This is the latest disgusting moves by Lieberman and Lindsey Graham:

http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/895-senators...

What say you about Lieberman Ms. Winograd? What do you say about the torture issue? What do you think about the 9/11 Commission Report? Truth? Fiction?

these are some of thoughts that are among our minds regarding "conservatism". to me it's a conflict of philosophy. the base of the republican party/the evangelicals seem to be preoccupied with same sex marriage and abortion. what happened to individualism/the freedom part of conservatism? that's some of what i find hypocritical of the right wing. although i could be mistaken i have always figured it was a
strategy to get indirect party/agenda support for NATION building in the name of providing democracy to other nations. most people i know/speak to don't want unnecessary conflict and prefer TAXation effiency.wow that sounds 'conservative' there's the dilemma. how was the RIGHT going to have a contrasting ideas/members...they attack the social issues of others. they attack their freedom. this has made the RIGHT look/act hypocritical. the problem it would have been difficult for the (r) party to accomplish their agenda without having this base/many who are evangelical/low to mid-middleclass. these people would be more inclined to follow the moderate liberal view of NO unnecessary conflict and efficient TAXation. the (r) got away from their ideals of freedom/individualism because of greed and unsurmountable power of wallStreet/financial elites. the little people of the (r) have been had if you will. NOW they will try to resurrect the "conservatism' name after obama attempts to fix this hypocritical mess BUSH handed to this country in the name of 'conservatism' with the last resort of government intervention.

Your tax dollars at work.

"A BBC Panorama programme, to be screened tonight, alleges that Allen Stanford may have been allowed to run his banking business unfettered for up to a decade because he was passing information on to America's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about the money-laundering activities of drug baron clients from Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela."

That's right. The DEA protected Stanford as an informant which gave him the cover to steal billions.

Well I guess that investigation is over. It touches upon a rich elite who is intertwined with appointees in the government.

Sound familiar?

Why do you have to be a dick?

Only if you can add. Which leaves out Republican voters and Republican and Democratic politicians.

Good Economist post. Most conservatives, even those who aren't completely crazy, seem to believe that New Deal economics were a failure and/or that Reaganomics were a success, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I wish the Eisenhower-style conservatives who knew better were running their party, but there are very few of them around anymore. Some conservatives, particularly the smartest of the paid shills, know that GOP policies steal from the middle class to increase the wealth of the richest Americans and further increase wealth inequity, while some of them really do believe their own BS. The country as a whole does better with a large and prosperous middle class, which should be common sense but also has plenty of data to back it up (see Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal). But the super-rich and their shills, whether at the National Review, WSJ or on Wall Street, are so greedy, selfish and short-sighted they'll screw over the entire country and the world economy rather than give up one ill-deserved dime.