j_b

of course they do, in terms of the balance sheet. a government can for only so long spend more than it makes. that's not true. You get rid of the long term pension liability and the current state budgets will still be as much in the hole and the same cuts would have to take place since taxes aren't going up.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430#

spare us the pablum about official tax rates. Let's face the reality of tax evasion at some point in your life.

many of these states had a revenue deficit problem due to YOUR anti-tax strategy in the first place, AND Texas, the state of no welfare except for that of the wealthy, is one of the deepest in the hole.

I don't know. Bottom line is paycheck?

liar. The states are bankrupt for lack of revenue due to YOUR laissez faire/bubble crash and YOUR drown the state in a bathtub/anti-tax strategy.

I'd assume that what is verbalized is very different from one outfit to another but there is little doubt that it is a conscious omission by those who decide what is published whether it is justified by some kind of rationalization, however thin it may be in the case of outlets that hype any of those events, even when they are only rumors, like Drudge.

How well does government fit in the Republican bathtub of no taxation on the wealthy and corporations when reeling in from another speculative bubble burst? Kind of awkward, doesn't it? Let it be clear that public employee pensions have nothing to do with the current crisis, the associated cuts in public programs, and state bankruptcy.

Stochastic Terrorism

How can there be no motion toward publishing any of it for 18 hrs at Drudge and the NYT without their being conscious of it? I don't know but I don't believe this kind of decision is haphazard.

I don't think it will help very much. If "liberals" are also in denial that the corporate media try to minimize the Spokane type event while they usually hype terror events/attempts, we are really fucked.

claiming that the difference in location explains the difference in media coverage isn't very credible at all.

thank you for responding. if you reduce your argument to only center on "terror" as the commonality between events, you then remove other possible relevant information, such as location of attack. No events are going to be identical, yet the pattern of hyping all rumor of Arab terror and minimizing right wing domestic terror has already been shown: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1023 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1175

e) starting to drink in the morning will make tvash say the darnedest thing all day long.

if you underpin an argument with a particular assertion, it seems to me that providing an example of that assertion is a reasonable MO, yes? i am a little bewildered by your response to what i think is a very reasonable request. and a little disappointed, since we share similar feelings about politics and culture.... is it because you cannot provide any examples? wtf? what about the Time square event of May 2010 by some brown dude and his smoking toyota? I said they were similar insofar they were attempts at terror.

Actually, his question was spot on and effectively highlights the fundamental ridiculousness of your premise. I wouldn't have answered it either! you already lost this argument but you keep coming back for more: it is undisputed that the corporate media will go hog wild for weeks on end on any half-ass report of Arab terror but will mostly ignore domestic terror.

it's the tvash anti-progressive drivel hour.

I find it interesting that you are trying to dilute my point into a morass of irrelevant semantics. why is this so?

Kinda like good ole Joe Lieberman...checkmate. In the world of positive change, ya takes what you can get when you can get it. one has to be fucking delusional to think that Lieberman's repeated betrayal of democratic constituencies was made all worthwhile because of his vote on DADT.

You are either clueless or are trying to spread disinformation. Senator sanders, rep. kucinich and a few others represent progressives in AMerica today.

wtf are you talking about? anyway, don't try to intimate that if we agree with Nader on one thing we necessarily agree with Nader on everything forever. it's not the way it works among progressives.

Paul is a wingnut.

Yes, if Gore had been elected, things would have turned out exactly the same...we know the 'argument'. With progressives, there's always a great big IF in there, somewhere. Hopefully Gore wouldn't gone to war in Iraq, torture, etc .. but who knows (how is Obama doing on this?). As far as deregulation, etc ... the record is clear that it is not really worse under the GOP than Democrats. what nonsense.

are we really having this discussion? The events are similar insofar they involve the use of explosive devices for terrorist purpose, which is usually good enough to incite a media feeding frenzy.

so you are acknowledging my point that Spokane didn't get the same coverage because it was different insofar it involved domestic terrorism.