Well, that is laughable! By cutting off Gary Wilmott, Peter Tilden proved Wilmott's point!
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. If she's an immigrant, deport her.
That's why she is waiting until later April to leave. That gives her five full years on the job, resulting in a pension and health benefits. She may be an idiot, but she's no dummy.
Shame on Obama for not firing her. His failure to do so will cost us taxpayers a fortune.
The repeated incorrect use of a word does not make it correct, but I agree that almost everyone uses it incorrectly and I have no chance in heck of rectifying the situation!
I am also annoyed by people who use "anxious" when they mean "eager." Further, the incorrect use of apostrophes drives me crazy. The other day I saw "ours" written as "our's."
Your comment seems to have nothing to do with mine. I have no objection to paying veterans benefits or Social Security benefits! I object to giving taxpayer dollars to other countries, and to welfare cheats and crooks. I am sorry if I did not make myself more clear. But I can assure you that I do not support the current administration in the least. I am also a veteran who receives Social Security benefits. My gripe is giving tax dollars to freeloaders, not paying people for service to their country or giving them retirement benefits they paid for through their taxes. My point is that it is absurd to give money to foreign countries so they can buy American products. I am NOT suggesting that we, in fact, pay Americans to do nothing. My last sentence was intended to show that doing so is just as stupid as giving money to other countries.
There is a vast difference between lending money and armaments to allies to fight a common enemy and giving money to another country in an alleged attempt to "create jobs." The former defeated Hitler. The latter does not create jobs; it only shifts them from one part of the economy to another.
You are missing the other side of the equation. The U.S. cannot lend $5 billion to country X without first taking it from the taxpayers. Yes, if that country buys planes, that creates jobs for plane builders. But the taxpayers now have $5 billion LESS to spend, which causes job losses for the businesses that would have received that $5 billion. If the debtor nation never pays back the $5 billion, that is even worse. We could just as easily give $5 billion to plane builders and tell them not to bother making the planes in the first place.
As explained in my book, "What You Don’t Know About Economics Can Hurt You," "Forgotten is the fact that the tax money used for this purpose must first be taken away from the taxpayers. If $5 billion is given to the nation of Sri Lanka in order that it might buy widgets from a company in New Jersey, that $5 billion is not being spent by the American consumer on something else. The New Jersey company surely gains (as does the New Jersey Senator who sponsored the foreign aid bill), but the taxpayers are $5 billion poorer, and other companies throughout the United States lose the $5 billion in sales they would have enjoyed had the legislation never been passed and the taxes never been collected in the first place. To make matters worse, the $5 billion loan to Sri Lanka may very likely never be paid back. In other words, the whole plan is in reality a $5 billion gift from the taxpayers to the employees of the New Jersey widget factory. The widgets could have been dumped in the ocean without affecting the equation. Or the employees could just as easily have been given the $5 billion directly and told to stay home, eliminating the need to make the widgets in the first place and saving the raw materials and energy consumed in the production process."
Not just soviet propaganda posters... there is also a small bust of former Soviet Premier Gorbachev on one of the bookshelves in another photo.
"Sebelius did not join Obama at the podium..."
You mean lectern. (You stand on a podium. You stand behind a lectern.)
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
colony14 
Experiment