Bitsy

A couple of objective reviews or great little linkey if your prefer of Greedy Lying Bastards as opposed to the thoughts and lies by Peter Foster, a known vocal, climate denier. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-07/news/37528494_1_climate-change-koch-brothers-heartland-institute http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/20/greedy-lying-bastards-oil-filmmaker http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/greedy-lying-bastards-doc-shrieks-to-the-converted/article9782678/ About the hockey stick: . http://www.desmogblog.com/national-science-foundation-vindicates-michael-mann And yet, Foster wants you to believe economists like Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick as opposed to science, tsk, tsk. Deniers are still chafing after Climategate, which they thought was their coup de grace, proved to be such a lemon.

The mention of his name simply reveals the weakness of their argument

In the zeal to delegitimize scientific studies and Al Gore, lol, climate deniers or as some like to call themselves, skeptics, fail to do even the most basic research of their sources or the information before they post.

What is there to say about a five year old article written by a conservative think tank in part funded by Koch Bros? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Manhattan_Institute

This is how one of the sources quoted in the article responds: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/20/response-mail-on-sunday-great-green-con-climate-change

Obviously, you did not read the "with you" in my post. To echo a word, typical

Considering that I have never been involved in a discussion with you on killings in Chicago, or any other locale, you have no idea what I have or haven’t said. Nor have we ever discussed mental health care, there is no basis for your comments. I call this straw grasping on your part and it usually occurs with one’s opinion does not hold water.

No, what is ludicrous is your comparison of deaths related to government uprisings or drug wars to the deaths contributed to individual killers. You seem to see these killings as the price we must pay for the freedoms given us by our constitution.

This article say it is true.. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/

Jefferson also believed it was okay for him to own slaves.

Two semi-automatic rifles, one bolt-action rifle and four handguns were a part of their arsenal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Middle_School_massacre

Any shortfall predicted for SS could be solved by removing the cap. . Fact checking Rick Perry’s claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-social-security-ponzi-scheme/

Bonham, SS is not a govenrment pension. The government contributes nothing to my SS account. My employer and myself are the only contributers and it is to be held in trust for me by the govenrment until i reaach retirement age.

Even if I lived to 78, I will never receive the monies that my employer and I contributed to SS. Those monies will stay within the system to pay for future generations, and I have no problem with that since I was able to provide for my heirs with other retirement vehicles. But to make a person's funds inaccessible to and force them to stay in the work force late into their 60’s with failing health and an ever changing job market just to keep taxes low for the 2% is unconscionable

Life expectancy in the US is 78 years. Considering that many begin their contribution to Social Security in their teen years, at what age do you think they should be able to begin to draw their money without reduced benefit?

I thought the child tax credit had been eliminated.

Sandy, the retirement age for Social Security in the US is already 67. How much more do you think we should raise it?

Now that he is a civilian and the affair is public knowledge what can of gag order do you envision put on Petraeus' testimony?

I tend to agree.

This is what is now being reported. .http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/us/petraeus-cia-resignation/index.html

My understanding is that the affair did not begin until several months after his appointment.

I agree, it appears she may have some political plus financial connections. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/petraeus-wife-holly-furious-affair-article-1.1200586

How the Times reported it. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/us/fbi-said-to-have-stumbled-into-news-of-david-petraeus-affair.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Which to me means that he can tell everything that he knows about what happened and, in his opinion, if there was a lapse of security and a cover up by the administration.

If that is the rumor, I am confident that he will be subpoenaed to provide this testimony and there is nothing the administration can do to keep him from testifying as was an option they had if he remained in office.