Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?

We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.

How many times a week do you get raped, abort and use free planned parenthood services?

I am lucky that I have never been raped and never aborted, and haven't used PP since I was in college. What is your point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?

We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.

How many times a week do you get raped, abort and use free planned parenthood services?

Anonymous wrote:
YOur irrational fear of people wanting to be in your vagina is the same as my father has for people taking his guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Last I heard there were over a thousand anti abortion bills in 2011, and we had already reached over a thousand in June of 2012. How does that compare to the number of "take guns away" state bills in 2011 and 2012, PP?

We will get over it when your party gets over it. Even if you all don't REALLY mean it with the whole wanding, "real" rape stuff, you might want to get them to STFU about it so that "paranoid" people don't think they ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

He's correct on all points. Liberals chose the wrong guy. He's not a leader he's a campaigner who sounds great but gets nothing done. Bill Clinton had stones to do hard work, not just campaign and be a celebrity.

Op you don't seem to get it. WE DON'T CARE. However horrible BO might be he is better than the kool-aid you people are offering.

Get your peeps out of the vagina business and then we can have a serious conversation.

No wants to be in your vagina get over it

If that's true, you have a funny way of showing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

He's correct on all points. Liberals chose the wrong guy. He's not a leader he's a campaigner who sounds great but gets nothing done. Bill Clinton had stones to do hard work, not just campaign and be a celebrity.

Op you don't seem to get it. WE DON'T CARE. However horrible BO might be he is better than the kool-aid you people are offering.

Get your peeps out of the vagina business and then we can have a serious conversation.

No wants to be in your vagina get over it

Anonymous wrote:Here is a rebuttal to Krugman

"You know you have hit the target when Paul Krugman takes time out from his hiking holiday to accuse you of “multiple errors and misrepresentations” ... but can only come up with one truly feeble objection."

"Krugman suggests that I haven't read the CBO's March 2010 report. Sorry, I have, and here is what it says:

“The provisions related to health insurance coverage—which affect both outlays and revenues—were projected to have a net cost of $1,042 billion over the 2012–2021 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,390 billion, offset in part by $349 billion in receipts and savings (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources).”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/20/newsweek-cover-rebuttal-paul-krugman-is-wrong.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

He's correct on all points. Liberals chose the wrong guy. He's not a leader he's a campaigner who sounds great but gets nothing done. Bill Clinton had stones to do hard work, not just campaign and be a celebrity.

Op you don't seem to get it. WE DON'T CARE. However horrible BO might be he is better than the kool-aid you people are offering.

Get your peeps out of the vagina business and then we can have a serious conversation.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

He's correct on all points. Liberals chose the wrong guy. He's not a leader he's a campaigner who sounds great but gets nothing done. Bill Clinton had stones to do hard work, not just campaign and be a celebrity.

jsteele wrote:Ferguson is not correct on all points. He made at least one pretty damning error:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/unethical-commentary-newsweek-edition/

There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:

"The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period."

Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.

Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.

There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:

"The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period."

Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.

Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.