Now you know why "news articles" are called stories.

Wow! I didn't see that one coming!

A Rockefeller republican, eh?

The only thing I remember about Nelson R. is that he was governor of New York when I was a kid and the famous picture of him giving the finger to a protester.

All those fish crapping 24/7. Before you know it, the oceans will look like a landfill. - - - Joy Behar, thinking, after her one brain cell was injected with a brain steroid.

The concept of "undecideds" at this stage of the election is absurd to me.  We have two candidates running who are distinctly different from each other; this is true even if John McCain is not exactly a hardcore conservative.  Barack Obama wants to take the country in a hard left turn.  His voting record and background are ample evidence of this fact.  McCain is far more mainstream in his views, despite some wacky ideas he has from time to time.  For anybody with half a brain to be undecided between these two at this point indicates a complete lack of discernment or of personal principles.  What exactly are people who are undecided waiting to see or hear at this point that will help them decide? 

I believe most "undecideds" claim they are such in order to draw attention to themselves and make themselves feel important.   Either that, or it has to be someone who has simply not paid attention to anything in the last year or so.  In that case, their opinion is based on nothing so it is meaningless.

Leading economists are marxists.  

http://afp.google.co...

Like this plant in the nobel prizes this year (proving again that the Nobel prizes have become more about politics than policy.)

The guy is a flaming marxist with so many holes in his economic theory it's not even funny.

And by naming a critic of unfettered free market policies and
unrestrained globalisation, the jury has decided to confront major,
civilisation-changing issues.

Like what?

In his latest book, "The Conscience of a Liberal," Krugman argues for
"a new New Deal" by reducing inequality in the United States and
expanding the social safety net first created through programmes
initiated under Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Yeah Marxism?

Here's some of his flawed statements in this article:

Traditional trade theory assumes that differences between countries
explain why some nations export agricultural products while others
export industrial goods. Such a process holds out the prospect that
some countries can improve their situations through complementarity.

But
Krugman's "theory clarifies why worldwide trade is in fact dominated by
countries which not only have similar conditions, but also trade in
similar products," the Nobel jury wrote.

Taiwan and South Korea's conditions have DRASTICALLY improved from the free market.  In fact  South Korea is a GREAT case for the free market to improve an area as we can directly compare and contrast the last fifty years versus it's communist north cousin.

The Nobel committee has
with this year's prize focused on an area of economic theory with deep
implications for the understanding of how globalisation affects
industries, populations, regions and the structure of trade,
particularly in developing countries.

Globalization has GREATLY helped end poverty in countless nations, what Krugman is suggesting would increase poverty in the USA and around the world.

In his columns for the New York Times, Krugman has been a harsh critic
of the Bush administration's policies, accusing it of engaging "in a
game of deception" on Iraq and the economy, and calling Bush's famous
tax cuts "a fiscal poison pill."

"fiscal poison pill"?  So does the laffer curve means nothing to you?  The fact that the economy improved after the tax cuts AND government revenues increased?  And what the hell does Iraq have to do with economic policy?

Typical BDS marxist.  

Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.

Mr. Pitchfork here is described as organized? How the F could you not have your mind made up at this late date? Too much time spent on the deck with the other Dads eating, drinking, talking and doing shrooms, perhaps?

»→Obama really nailed it with this offering from POLITICO:

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three
points higher in the polls,” Obama told me. “If I were watching Fox
News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7
is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading,
Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant
liberal. Who wants somebody like that?"

Anybody want to disagree with Sen. Obama's self-appraisal?

Underdog & Pitbull 08

It's true!  See for yourself. 

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

What are the odds of The New Yorker actually paying a reporter for a story that ends with a life-long "undecided" dim, pining away for Clinton and Carter years, voting for McCain? Reporters gots to eat too, you know.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber