Traducea poate fi apostilata (supralegalizata) si fara ca documentul original sa fie apostilat deoarece reprezinta doua certificari/autentificari diferite. Apostila de pe documentul original autentifica actul original, stampilele si semnaturile de pe acesta (aceasta procedura se realizeaza la prefectura). Legalizare traduceri reprezinta autentificarea semnaturii si stampilei traducatorului (aceasta procedura sa realizeaza la un birou notarial). Apostilarea/supralegalizarea traducerii reprezinta autentificarea semnaturii si stampilei notarului care a legalizat traducerea (aceasta procedura se realizeaza la camera notarilor). Actele de studiu (emise in Romania) au nevoie de o stampila de la Centrul National de Recunoastere si Echivalare a Diplomelor pentru a putea fi apostilate la prefectura.
Se afișează postările cu eticheta traduceri engleza. Afișați toate postările
Se afișează postările cu eticheta traduceri engleza. Afișați toate postările
marți, 8 ianuarie 2013
Traduceri autorizate si legalizate
Traducea poate fi apostilata (supralegalizata) si fara ca documentul original sa fie apostilat deoarece reprezinta doua certificari/autentificari diferite. Apostila de pe documentul original autentifica actul original, stampilele si semnaturile de pe acesta (aceasta procedura se realizeaza la prefectura). Legalizare traduceri reprezinta autentificarea semnaturii si stampilei traducatorului (aceasta procedura sa realizeaza la un birou notarial). Apostilarea/supralegalizarea traducerii reprezinta autentificarea semnaturii si stampilei notarului care a legalizat traducerea (aceasta procedura se realizeaza la camera notarilor). Actele de studiu (emise in Romania) au nevoie de o stampila de la Centrul National de Recunoastere si Echivalare a Diplomelor pentru a putea fi apostilate la prefectura.
vineri, 11 februarie 2011
On SiCKO
by Michael F. Cannon
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
First, Mike, I want to thank you for inviting me to the Washington, D.C., premiere of your new movie SiCKO. You invited me even though you knew I was likely to criticize the film's prescription for health care reform.
Of course, we both know that's exactly why you invited me. You knew that I'd criticize your proposal that the U.S. adopt a government–run health care system, and that would bring added media attention to SiCKO in advance of its nationwide release this weekend. You created the news hook, and we both got the opportunity to air our views on health care reform. It was a win–win.
I want you to know that I've held up my end of the bargain. I've criticized SiCKO in whatever medium I could: from blog posts and podcasts to The New York Times. And I haven't held back. In one review, I even wrote, "from a policy standpoint — and I say this more in sadness than in anger — SiCKO was so breathtaking a specimen of ignorant propaganda that it would make Pravda blush." You just can't buy that kind of press.
I have to say, by making such a one–sided movie, you certainly made my job easier. For example, you show American patients who were denied medical care by greedy for–profit insurance companies. But you ignore the fact that power–hungry politicians do the same thing in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba. I suppose that's why the Canadian journalists at the Cannes Film Festival gave you such a grilling.
You laud socialized American institutions like public education and the post office. But you never mention that Americans criticize those same institutions for their high costs and poor quality.
You extol the virtues of France's economic system, which seems to have socialized everything right down to laundry service. But you never tell your audience that taxes in France are 50 percent higher than in the U.S., or that the French unemployment rate is double the U.S. rate. Instead, you just ask several bons vivants if they feel like they're doing well. (Mais bien sûr!)
For the record, Mike, I have also praised SiCKO for its sense of humor, for exposing the silliness of our ongoing embargo of Cuba, and for highlighting some of the more insane aspects of America's health care system. In the notes I took during the film — I know, I'm such a nerd — I actually wrote, "Thank God MM is telling these stories."
It is insane that insurance companies have so much say over what is "medically necessary." But why do you never mention — or don't you know? — that our own government hands that power to insurance companies by penalizing insurance that lets patients decide what's medically necessary?
It is insane that those 9–11 rescue workers had so much difficulty getting medical attention. At the D.C. premiere, I spoke with Reggie Cervantes, John Graham, and Bill Maher, as well as two other rescue workers who didn't go to Cuba. All five of them told me that they had health insurance on September 11, but that they lost their insurance when they lost their jobs.
Why don't you tell your audience that the U.S. government was partly responsible for Reggie, John, and Bill losing their insurance? After all, it is Congress that ties health insurance to employment. If Congress stopped meddling with health insurance, people like Reggie, John, and Bill could get coverage that sticks with them through the rough times.
You're also correct that the health care industry has way too much influence in Washington. But what do you expect? Congress directly controls almost half of our health care spending, and controls the rest indirectly. With so many of our health care decisions being made in Congress, is it any wonder that industry spends more than any other to influence Congress?
The way to reduce the industry's influence is to take those decisions away from Congress and return them to the people.
When we spoke before the D.C. premiere, you apologized for leaving a clip of me on the cutting room floor, and suggested that we get together sometime to discuss health care reform. I'll forgive you for the former if you'll make good on the latter. We may not agree on everything, but we share a sharp distaste for the status quo.
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
First, Mike, I want to thank you for inviting me to the Washington, D.C., premiere of your new movie SiCKO. You invited me even though you knew I was likely to criticize the film's prescription for health care reform.
Of course, we both know that's exactly why you invited me. You knew that I'd criticize your proposal that the U.S. adopt a government–run health care system, and that would bring added media attention to SiCKO in advance of its nationwide release this weekend. You created the news hook, and we both got the opportunity to air our views on health care reform. It was a win–win.
I want you to know that I've held up my end of the bargain. I've criticized SiCKO in whatever medium I could: from blog posts and podcasts to The New York Times. And I haven't held back. In one review, I even wrote, "from a policy standpoint — and I say this more in sadness than in anger — SiCKO was so breathtaking a specimen of ignorant propaganda that it would make Pravda blush." You just can't buy that kind of press.
I have to say, by making such a one–sided movie, you certainly made my job easier. For example, you show American patients who were denied medical care by greedy for–profit insurance companies. But you ignore the fact that power–hungry politicians do the same thing in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba. I suppose that's why the Canadian journalists at the Cannes Film Festival gave you such a grilling.
You laud socialized American institutions like public education and the post office. But you never mention that Americans criticize those same institutions for their high costs and poor quality.
You extol the virtues of France's economic system, which seems to have socialized everything right down to laundry service. But you never tell your audience that taxes in France are 50 percent higher than in the U.S., or that the French unemployment rate is double the U.S. rate. Instead, you just ask several bons vivants if they feel like they're doing well. (Mais bien sûr!)
For the record, Mike, I have also praised SiCKO for its sense of humor, for exposing the silliness of our ongoing embargo of Cuba, and for highlighting some of the more insane aspects of America's health care system. In the notes I took during the film — I know, I'm such a nerd — I actually wrote, "Thank God MM is telling these stories."
It is insane that insurance companies have so much say over what is "medically necessary." But why do you never mention — or don't you know? — that our own government hands that power to insurance companies by penalizing insurance that lets patients decide what's medically necessary?
It is insane that those 9–11 rescue workers had so much difficulty getting medical attention. At the D.C. premiere, I spoke with Reggie Cervantes, John Graham, and Bill Maher, as well as two other rescue workers who didn't go to Cuba. All five of them told me that they had health insurance on September 11, but that they lost their insurance when they lost their jobs.
Why don't you tell your audience that the U.S. government was partly responsible for Reggie, John, and Bill losing their insurance? After all, it is Congress that ties health insurance to employment. If Congress stopped meddling with health insurance, people like Reggie, John, and Bill could get coverage that sticks with them through the rough times.
You're also correct that the health care industry has way too much influence in Washington. But what do you expect? Congress directly controls almost half of our health care spending, and controls the rest indirectly. With so many of our health care decisions being made in Congress, is it any wonder that industry spends more than any other to influence Congress?
The way to reduce the industry's influence is to take those decisions away from Congress and return them to the people.
When we spoke before the D.C. premiere, you apologized for leaving a clip of me on the cutting room floor, and suggested that we get together sometime to discuss health care reform. I'll forgive you for the former if you'll make good on the latter. We may not agree on everything, but we share a sharp distaste for the status quo.
American Spectator Warns: Michael Moore Wants Soviet Style Medicine
By David Hogberg
Published 6/22/2007 12:08:08 AM
WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday, Michael Moore held a special screening of Sicko for health care lobbyists in D.C. at the Phoenix Theaters at Union Station. I and other members of the media tried to get into the screening, but Moore kept us out, saying that it was only for lobbyists. That left the screening with an audience of twenty.Nevertheless, at the press conference just beforehand, Moore was entertaining. The folks from the feminist anti-war group Code Pink showed up and chanted, "Health Care Not Warfare!" One of the ushers asked them to stop, since it would disturb the people who were watching movies in the other theaters. I found that a bit ironic since the theaters at Union Station attract the sort of clientele that doesn't know how to shut up (or turn off its cell phones) during a movie.Anyway, Moore made a number of comments during his press conference that laid out much of the left-wing case for government-run health care. Since I am, at present, unable to give you my review of the movie, I will instead comment on some of his remarks:1. "Remove private health insurance from the equation. There is no room for it in an ethical and human society."That begs the question, how humane and ethical are societies that have no private health insurance? We only have to look north to Canada to answer that question. People end up on waiting lists for surgery, where they suffer considerable anxiety and pain, and sometimes die. Word has it Moore's documentary leaves out those details in its examination of Canada. Perhaps we need to raise the question of what makes an ethical and humane filmmaker?2. "I favor the removal of private health insurance companies from this country. I don't believe that there is room for them in the equation. When you are talking about people's health, you should never have to worry about profit."One sees this anti-profit argument a lot on the left. I have to wonder, does the left have the slightest clue about the function of profit in a free market? (I know, that's a rhetorical question.) Profit is what drives producers to provide goods and services at a lower price while also improving quality. Profit also acts as a "signal" to producers, letting them know where to invest their resources. Products and services that people find more useful tend to yield higher profits, incentivizing producers to put more resources into them. Without profits, doctors and other providers won't know which services patients find most useful, pharmaceutical companies won't know which drugs are most effective, and insurance companies won't know which insurance products are most desired. 3. "I believe that pharmaceutical companies need to be regulated like a public utility. We need medicine, but we need government control and regulation, so that the medicine is affordable for everyone, so that we are producing the right medicines, so that we are producing safe medicines."Someone who makes such a remark must know next to nothing about the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA's regulatory process for new drug approval averages eight-to-ten years. That adds a huge cost to new drugs. We need to find ways to reduce this regulatory burden. Moore wants to increase it. Anyone who believes that will make medicine more affordable, or that government will be able to figure out how to produce the "right medicine," please purchase a one-way ticket to Fantasyland.4. "Forty-five years ago, 30 pharmaceutical companies were working on cures and vaccines. Today there are five. You need to get back to working on the cures and vaccines. Once you cure something, the person doesn't need to take a pill for the next forty years."There are two main reasons why there are so few vaccine makers today. First, the trial lawyers began suing vaccine makers in the 1980s, subjecting the industry to huge liabilities and making vaccine production less profitable. Second, in the early 1990s the federal government got into the vaccine purchasing business with the Vaccines for Children program. This program buys massive quantities of vaccines to distribute to children. But over time the government has pushed down the price it pays for vaccines, making them less profitable, thereby driving more companies out of the vaccine business. Moore wants you to think that the reason for fewer vaccine makers is that pharmaceutical companies aren't compassionate enough. The real problem is that trial lawyers and government have taken much of the profit out of it.5. "I want [the American people] to demand that candidates of both parties come forth with specific health care proposals that will guarantee health insurance for all Americans and profit not be involved in it. I hope the people support John Conyers' bill, HR 676, in Congress right now. I think all the polls show that health care is the number one domestic issue right now....My general hope is that we have a free, universal health care system for all Americans and that no private company acts as a middleman to determine whether someone gets care."Two points on this comment. First, I added the italics to show that Moore makes the common mistake of conflating health care and health insurance. Health care is the treatment we receive to diagnose and cure illness. Health insurance is a way of paying for health care. Having universal health insurance does not guarantee universal health care. Most systems that have universal health insurance ration care by implementing waiting lists and canceling surgeries. In short, universal health insurance leads to very restricted access to health care. (For a more extended discussion of this, go here.)Second, clearly Moore does not like the idea of a private insurance company deciding whether someone gets care (and neither do I). But Moore wants to move us to a government-run system. What he won't tell you is that under such a system, the government will decide whether or not you get care. In Britain, smokers are to be denied surgery if they do not quit smoking four weeks before surgery. In New Zealand, the government recommended that patients aged 75 and over be denied kidney dialysis. Switching to a government-run health care system does not eliminate the denial of treatment; it just changes the entity that does it.Will Sicko be any more illuminating than Moore's press conference? I'm eager to find out. Hopefully I'll be able to get a sneak peek of the film over the weekend and give you a review on Monday.
Published 6/22/2007 12:08:08 AM
WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday, Michael Moore held a special screening of Sicko for health care lobbyists in D.C. at the Phoenix Theaters at Union Station. I and other members of the media tried to get into the screening, but Moore kept us out, saying that it was only for lobbyists. That left the screening with an audience of twenty.Nevertheless, at the press conference just beforehand, Moore was entertaining. The folks from the feminist anti-war group Code Pink showed up and chanted, "Health Care Not Warfare!" One of the ushers asked them to stop, since it would disturb the people who were watching movies in the other theaters. I found that a bit ironic since the theaters at Union Station attract the sort of clientele that doesn't know how to shut up (or turn off its cell phones) during a movie.Anyway, Moore made a number of comments during his press conference that laid out much of the left-wing case for government-run health care. Since I am, at present, unable to give you my review of the movie, I will instead comment on some of his remarks:1. "Remove private health insurance from the equation. There is no room for it in an ethical and human society."That begs the question, how humane and ethical are societies that have no private health insurance? We only have to look north to Canada to answer that question. People end up on waiting lists for surgery, where they suffer considerable anxiety and pain, and sometimes die. Word has it Moore's documentary leaves out those details in its examination of Canada. Perhaps we need to raise the question of what makes an ethical and humane filmmaker?2. "I favor the removal of private health insurance companies from this country. I don't believe that there is room for them in the equation. When you are talking about people's health, you should never have to worry about profit."One sees this anti-profit argument a lot on the left. I have to wonder, does the left have the slightest clue about the function of profit in a free market? (I know, that's a rhetorical question.) Profit is what drives producers to provide goods and services at a lower price while also improving quality. Profit also acts as a "signal" to producers, letting them know where to invest their resources. Products and services that people find more useful tend to yield higher profits, incentivizing producers to put more resources into them. Without profits, doctors and other providers won't know which services patients find most useful, pharmaceutical companies won't know which drugs are most effective, and insurance companies won't know which insurance products are most desired. 3. "I believe that pharmaceutical companies need to be regulated like a public utility. We need medicine, but we need government control and regulation, so that the medicine is affordable for everyone, so that we are producing the right medicines, so that we are producing safe medicines."Someone who makes such a remark must know next to nothing about the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA's regulatory process for new drug approval averages eight-to-ten years. That adds a huge cost to new drugs. We need to find ways to reduce this regulatory burden. Moore wants to increase it. Anyone who believes that will make medicine more affordable, or that government will be able to figure out how to produce the "right medicine," please purchase a one-way ticket to Fantasyland.4. "Forty-five years ago, 30 pharmaceutical companies were working on cures and vaccines. Today there are five. You need to get back to working on the cures and vaccines. Once you cure something, the person doesn't need to take a pill for the next forty years."There are two main reasons why there are so few vaccine makers today. First, the trial lawyers began suing vaccine makers in the 1980s, subjecting the industry to huge liabilities and making vaccine production less profitable. Second, in the early 1990s the federal government got into the vaccine purchasing business with the Vaccines for Children program. This program buys massive quantities of vaccines to distribute to children. But over time the government has pushed down the price it pays for vaccines, making them less profitable, thereby driving more companies out of the vaccine business. Moore wants you to think that the reason for fewer vaccine makers is that pharmaceutical companies aren't compassionate enough. The real problem is that trial lawyers and government have taken much of the profit out of it.5. "I want [the American people] to demand that candidates of both parties come forth with specific health care proposals that will guarantee health insurance for all Americans and profit not be involved in it. I hope the people support John Conyers' bill, HR 676, in Congress right now. I think all the polls show that health care is the number one domestic issue right now....My general hope is that we have a free, universal health care system for all Americans and that no private company acts as a middleman to determine whether someone gets care."Two points on this comment. First, I added the italics to show that Moore makes the common mistake of conflating health care and health insurance. Health care is the treatment we receive to diagnose and cure illness. Health insurance is a way of paying for health care. Having universal health insurance does not guarantee universal health care. Most systems that have universal health insurance ration care by implementing waiting lists and canceling surgeries. In short, universal health insurance leads to very restricted access to health care. (For a more extended discussion of this, go here.)Second, clearly Moore does not like the idea of a private insurance company deciding whether someone gets care (and neither do I). But Moore wants to move us to a government-run system. What he won't tell you is that under such a system, the government will decide whether or not you get care. In Britain, smokers are to be denied surgery if they do not quit smoking four weeks before surgery. In New Zealand, the government recommended that patients aged 75 and over be denied kidney dialysis. Switching to a government-run health care system does not eliminate the denial of treatment; it just changes the entity that does it.Will Sicko be any more illuminating than Moore's press conference? I'm eager to find out. Hopefully I'll be able to get a sneak peek of the film over the weekend and give you a review on Monday.
Illegeracy
What is it about our political culture that causes everyone to be so damn polarized? Or maybe most people really aren’t so polarized and it’s the media that makes it seem so. I can only imagine that is in fact the pop cultured Inquireresque media, that is tearing away the moral fabric from this once honorable American culture. The American public is everyday, driven farther and farther away from the core values of this nation. We can blame only ourselves for letting this happen. It’s not capitalism, conservatism, or liberalism that might be to blame. No, capitalism is necessary for our way of life, or should I say essential; and liberalism is also an important element which exists to keep the conservatives in check and v/v. They aren’t the issue, what is the issue is education. We are obligated as Americans to educate our neighbors. We owe it to the future of this nation to actively be involved in our communities. How many of us criticize everything we don’t agree with and then look in the mirror and realize that we had never actually tried to be part of a solution? So many of us go about our mundane lives and complain about the democrats and the republicans… How about we quit our bitching and become part of a solution.. Have you ever heard of illegeracy? Well here you go.. read on
…
An illegerate person is a person who feels like they cannot make a difference in society. They ultimately give up and worry only about themselves. They bitch and bitch about the world around them but never really do anything to change it. Illegeracy is the failure of an individual to realize that as a citizen it is their duty to get involved and help society progress into the future. It is the individual’s failure to see the condition of their life as open to choices. Illegeracy can also be described as exiting the political system. A person who is illegerate is incapable of making sense of his cultural situation or is culturally confused.
The main factor or characteristic involved in this political-social-cultural phenomenon is aliteracy. Aliteracy is the act of not reading. An aliterate individual is someone who is capable of reading yet chooses not to. The development of the American political cultural is now in constant competition with the popular mass culture. The popular culture often negatively influences people’s values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. This negative influence along with the simultaneous failure of the media and the American education system promotes and motivates Illegeracy in our society. The popular culture of America is defeating the very important political culture by causing apathy, cynicism, and empty if not non-existent political discourse. Illegeracy is seen more in the lower socioeconomic class, than in the higher socioeconomic classes. Higher levels of education almost ensure that an individual is involved in their political culture. As the levels of education drop we see that Illegeracy increases.
One of the consequences that follows Illegeracy is called cultural confusion. Cultural confusion is the constant misperception of reality and being unable to identify. Cultural confusion leads to false consciousness. False consciousness in Marxist theory is a failure to recognize the instruments of one's oppression or exploitation as one's own creation, as when members of an oppressed class unwittingly adopt views of the oppressor class. Illegeracy promotes the abdication of ones political power to help choose the direction of society. Exercising our political power that we have as citizens is not only a right but also a duty. Illegerate people don’t understand that duty or they never new it from the beginning.
Illegeracy’s impact on politics in America is severe. It leads a citizen to the feeling that his or her life is not open to choice. After a person decides that they have no choices, they give up any political power to influence the direction of society. It reduces political participation, it undermines political discourse, and it leads to a depoliticized society. The illegerate people of our society express passivity, which reinforces political avoidance, and ultimately contributes to anti intellectualism.
It is clear that the media and education systems, are failing us. The media, which is supposed to educate us, has become an entertainment and consumer based industry. News programs, magazines, and even newspapers are neglecting to focus on the important news and opting to focus on entertaining us rather then informing us. The media is at partial fault, but our public education system should take most of the blame. Public education has become a system that thoughtlessly ignores subjects such as politics, provokes anti-intellectualism and widely accepts mediocrity. Therefore, the simultaneous failure of the media and education will continue to produce a society of illegerate citizens.
…
An illegerate person is a person who feels like they cannot make a difference in society. They ultimately give up and worry only about themselves. They bitch and bitch about the world around them but never really do anything to change it. Illegeracy is the failure of an individual to realize that as a citizen it is their duty to get involved and help society progress into the future. It is the individual’s failure to see the condition of their life as open to choices. Illegeracy can also be described as exiting the political system. A person who is illegerate is incapable of making sense of his cultural situation or is culturally confused.
The main factor or characteristic involved in this political-social-cultural phenomenon is aliteracy. Aliteracy is the act of not reading. An aliterate individual is someone who is capable of reading yet chooses not to. The development of the American political cultural is now in constant competition with the popular mass culture. The popular culture often negatively influences people’s values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. This negative influence along with the simultaneous failure of the media and the American education system promotes and motivates Illegeracy in our society. The popular culture of America is defeating the very important political culture by causing apathy, cynicism, and empty if not non-existent political discourse. Illegeracy is seen more in the lower socioeconomic class, than in the higher socioeconomic classes. Higher levels of education almost ensure that an individual is involved in their political culture. As the levels of education drop we see that Illegeracy increases.
One of the consequences that follows Illegeracy is called cultural confusion. Cultural confusion is the constant misperception of reality and being unable to identify. Cultural confusion leads to false consciousness. False consciousness in Marxist theory is a failure to recognize the instruments of one's oppression or exploitation as one's own creation, as when members of an oppressed class unwittingly adopt views of the oppressor class. Illegeracy promotes the abdication of ones political power to help choose the direction of society. Exercising our political power that we have as citizens is not only a right but also a duty. Illegerate people don’t understand that duty or they never new it from the beginning.
Illegeracy’s impact on politics in America is severe. It leads a citizen to the feeling that his or her life is not open to choice. After a person decides that they have no choices, they give up any political power to influence the direction of society. It reduces political participation, it undermines political discourse, and it leads to a depoliticized society. The illegerate people of our society express passivity, which reinforces political avoidance, and ultimately contributes to anti intellectualism.
It is clear that the media and education systems, are failing us. The media, which is supposed to educate us, has become an entertainment and consumer based industry. News programs, magazines, and even newspapers are neglecting to focus on the important news and opting to focus on entertaining us rather then informing us. The media is at partial fault, but our public education system should take most of the blame. Public education has become a system that thoughtlessly ignores subjects such as politics, provokes anti-intellectualism and widely accepts mediocrity. Therefore, the simultaneous failure of the media and education will continue to produce a society of illegerate citizens.
Fitzy
I made no presumption about you or democrats in general . I simply said " for all of Bill Clinton fans/Anti Bush people WHO are upset.. and have no problem with Clinton's pardons... I did presume however, that there were people who fit that criteria but not that all democrats did. It is those people who I directed the comment to. If you are a Clinton fan and not a bush fan yet still see the obvious , that Clinton pardoned more dirty rotten scumbags that made scooter Libby look like a girl scout, then you have no worries.. You were not my intended audience. It's the others who are blinded by the light reflecting off the (democratic) Ass that I meant to attract.
Somebody tell me why the Scooter Libby issue is even worthy of debate.. It's like the Paris Hilton drama. It is stupid and irrelevant. Why am I even blogging about these issues? Maybe BK has an answer for me...
Somebody tell me why the Scooter Libby issue is even worthy of debate.. It's like the Paris Hilton drama. It is stupid and irrelevant. Why am I even blogging about these issues? Maybe BK has an answer for me...
Attention Huffington Post readers/crazed libs....
I feel I must comment on this, even on the day of our independence.......for the 976 columnists on the huffington post writing about Scooter Libby.......(throat clearing noises)........NOBODY FREAKING CARES ABOUT SCOOTER LIBBY!!!!!!! Whew, I feel a lot better. I don't know what it is about that site. Not a peep about illegal immigration/amnesty. Not a word about the london terror plot, or even Islamic extremists in general. Here, I'll even help them out. You know what people care about, huffington post people? They care about getting t boned by a truck load of illegals with no insurance. They care about getting blown up by crazed jihadists. Surely, you must realize this, even with your limited contact with persons with a dissenting opinion. So why the deafning silence? Partially, I think they are scared of putting up articles about illegals since even the good liberals comment in droves disagreeing with them. I mean, you can only phrase "what we owe illegals" so many ways to try to disguise your agenda before people see with their own two eyes what the hell is going on. Maybe that explains the silence. But, by god, they will write about Scooter Libby and/or valerie plame for DAYS. By not even discussing the two biggest issues that Americans care about, according to most of the polling data that I've seen, Huffington continues to establish her irrelevancy, along with most of her columnists. They'll write the shit out of some global warming columns, though.....
Abonați-vă la:
Postări (Atom)