All I Want For Christmas Is $100 From You!

One Hundred Bucks. Cash. Yes, from you. Not just you, but from each and everyone of you. Maybe I am greedy, but I want to use the money, your money, to buy something I cannot afford on my own; Freedom. Freedom isn't free, as a matter of fact it isn't even cheap. Some have given their right arm for freedom. Some, their very lives. You may already have made some contributions to help pay for freedom. Now, your money may make the difference. Here is what I would like you to do.

Instead of buying me, or for that matter someone else a present this year, make a donation that will further the cause of freedom. My idea of freedom is Constitutional. The larger a government, the more interference in our daily lives. Theoretically, the larger a government is the more "good" that government does, but that turns out to often be a false expectation. The very definition of governmental tyranny is anything that restricts an individual's freedom. Freedom, independence, liberty refer to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one's rights and powers. I want to you to make ten contributions to organizations or candidates that work toward the cause of properly limiting government, as governments are always the greatest threats to mankind. If those contributions are $10 each, the total would be $100. If you have more to give, please do not let my request reduce those amounts! 

Why now? Why Christmas? Partly because that is a time when people think about giving. There is a more important reason. Both the Federal and State governments have created regulations to tell you how you can give away your money. Some people think this is an un-Constitutional restriction on a method of free speech which when being done for a political purpose is just unthinkable! We are told that we cannot give too much, and the all-caring never corrupt bureaucratic regulators know what is best for how much we can give. If I was rich I could avoid those regulations with a few calls to my accountants and lawyers and get plenty of help from the politicians to do so. As a man of limited means, not so much. So I am forced to follow the rules. How much you can give is regulated by the calendar year in some elections and over a campaign cycle for others. Regulations are always designed to be simple for you to understand, just see one of the thousands of IRS pamphlets available on the subject. Anyway, for many campaigns, you can give only so much until the end of 2011 and then the government bean counters start all over again knowing what is best for you. I think the government will also send a bureaucrat to your home to make sure your fingernails are clean after washing your hands. But you are not allowed to use Physohex. That is against the rules.

More importantly, campaigns are required to report contributions at specified times. The end of year reporting is used by the big donors, you know the donors who are wealthy enough to skirt the rules you and I can't afford to. They look to see how much a candidate has raised, and HOW MANY  donors are giving. In state, out of state, how big, how small, everything counts. So any contributions you make now are in many ways more powerful than actually voting in a primary or next November. Welcome to America, where the regulations even let us afford to "game" the system.

I have my list of who you should give to. All are good candidates or causes and the best current choice for freedom in this political market. This is my top ten list (in no particular order) for who to give the ten bucks to:


#1: US Senator Scott Brown, Republican, Massachusetts - OK. We start with someone who does not always agree with me and his idea of a nice government is one where the Feds send millions of dollars to the states to do stuff like help the homeless. What is wrong with that? Given corruption flows up when dollars flow down, let the local governments or churches help the homeless and help starve a bunch of bureaucrats. But I know Scott, I like the way Scott thinks, and even if we disagree, it is only some of the time, not most of the time! And his opponent is Elizabeth "Betsy Wetsy"  Warren, who will do more than cry and wet her diaper. She will spend billions on silly government bureaucracy when Senator Brown will only spend millions. Remember, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about raising your taxes. Like the rich do not know how to hire an accountant to make sure you pay their share too! Strictly pocketbook issue here. I can't afford Queen Elizabeth!
http://www.scottbrown.com/donate


#2
CLT - Citizens for Limited Taxation & Government - Citizens for Limited Taxation is the largest taxpayers association in Massachusetts. CLT was founded in 1974 to defend state taxpayers against a proposed state graduated income tax, which it defeated on the 1976 statewide ballot and again on the 1994 ballot. CLT also limited property taxes with Proposition 2½ in 1980 and created a state tax cap in 1986. They have saved everyone who pays taxes in Massachusetts way more than $10 each year. A membership starts at $40. Trust me. If we don't fund them, no one will.
http://cltg.org/mbrinfo.htm


#3
Tom Weaver, candidate for US Congress, Republican, Massachusetts - Tom Weaver is the Co-Founder of ShowIDtoVote.com, the effort to increase voter participation by improving integrity and efficiency during elections. Tom has become one of my closest friends! It is very hard to find someone who better understand the role of the citizen in restraining government excess. A true Constitutional scholar, an environmentalist, a Navy man and Boy Scout forever, Tom deserves your help to defeat Niki Tsongas. In addition, I am a paid consultant to the Tom Weaver for Congress campaign. 
http://tomweaverforcongress.com/donate.html


#4
Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, is a liberal arts college known for being the first American college to prohibit in its charter all discrimination based on race, religion, or sex; its refusal of government funding; and its monthly publication, Imprimis (free!). National Review has described Hillsdale as a "citadel of American conservatism." It is the best place in the world to learn how to think instead of what to think. Forget sending checks to your Alma Mater and send them to Hillsdale instead. 
http://www.hillsdale.edu/support/default.asp


#5
Representative Thaddeus McCotter, Republican, Michigan - My adopted Congressman. He  has focused his efforts on preserving and promoting manufacturing and small businesses, because they form the back bone of our country's economy. He has and will continue to fight tirelessly to reduce taxes and the size and scope of government. He is the Congressman we all deserve to have representing our views. Always the 1st target of the DNC, and more than that, McCotter Rocks!
https://mccotter2012.com/contribute/


#6
Newt Gingrich, candidate for President, Republican - It is not about what Newt isn't, it is about what he is. He is the only candidate that will not need on the job training to deal with the global geopolitical crisis. That may make a difference in who leads the world into greater freedom and real peace. With a deranged Muslim Jihad underway, an aggressive China, a resurgent "Soviet" Russia, the failure of the EU, and even drug lords of the Mexican cartels challenging our Republic at every turn, we need the best choice that understands the world, history and emerging technologies. NO OTHER EXPERIENCE MATTERS. Just Say Newt! But you can substitute Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, just not Mitt, Jon or Barry (They do not need the money!) 
https://www.newt.org/donate

#7
NRA - National Rifle Association - This one is not about guns. This is all about protecting the Bill of Rights. If you do not understand why even people who hate guns should support the NRA, then you have not done your research. 
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/donate.asp


#8
Dean Cavaretta, candidate for Massachusetts State Senate, Republican - Dean is running to say "no" to the Beacon Hill Machine that dominates the Commonwealth. "If we do not allow our state to become more competitive for Free Enterprise, the quality of our schools and value of our homes will be put at risk." As an independent voice to close tax loopholes, he will support ending corporate welfare for connected CEOs, and crony stimulus for big banks or wasteful programs. 
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d2/default.aspx?wid=44823


#9

Lynne Torgerson, candidate for US Congress, independent, Minnesota - a Community Activist, has devoted her adult career to protecting the Constitutional rights of people of all races, nationalities, walks of life and religions. Ms. Torgerson, was awarded Attorney of the Year and won a case at the United States Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. Ms. Torgerson wants to represent you in Congress. She has your best interests and the best interests of our Country at heart. Ms. Torgerson is a woman of integrity, compassion, who has a strong Midwestern work ethic, is trustworthy, who will make the hard decisions, and, tell us the truth.  She is running to replace Larry Ellison in Congress and he really needs to be defeated. 

http://torgersonforcongress.com/donate.html

#10
PJ Media - Pajamas TV - OK. Not a charity but you deserve something from me for all this. The web based TV station that will keep you laughing and learning all about the USA.  PJTV.com makes dozens of new videos each week for insight on topics in the news. Many are available for free, some are posted on youtube. Their best programming requires a subscription and for $10 you can watch the good stuff for two months. These programs include shows featuring Bill Whittle, Alfonzo Rachel,  Joe Hicks,  Andrew Klavan, Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Kruiser, Sonja Schmidt, and Hollywood's Roger L. Simon. I canceled my regular cable and subscribed to PJTV instead! Watch a few free shows but then send them $10 and get improved vision for about the cost of an average lunch!
http://www.pjtv.com/subscribe/


If you can't or just won't send the money, at least find these folks on facebook, twitter, Google+, like the pages, and spread the word about them. Subscribe to the Hillsdale College Imprimis newsletter (paper or digital are both free) and watch the PJTV.com shows from Pajamas Media. Consider them my Christmas present to you!


If you need more suggestions I had trouble not putting my cousin Marty Lamb on the list. Other great campaigns to support include Keiko Orrall, Bill Hudak, Sandi Martinez, Peter Durant, Rich Tisei, Paul Adams (who was gerrymandered out of his district) and Charlie Murphy, the whipped (former Democratic whip) State Rep.

The Other Climate Theory

Al Gore won't hear it, but heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.

By ANNE JOLIS

In April 1990, Al Gore published an open letter in the New York Times "To Skeptics on Global Warming" in which he compared them to medieval flat-Earthers. He soon became vice president and his conviction that climate change was dominated by man-made emissions went mainstream. Western governments embarked on a new era of anti-emission regulation and poured billions into research that might justify it. As far as the average Western politician was concerned, the debate was over.

But a few physicists weren't worrying about Al Gore in the 1990s. They were theorizing about another possible factor in climate change: charged subatomic particles from outer space, or "cosmic rays," whose atmospheric levels appear to rise and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.

The theory has now moved from the corners of climate skepticism to the center of the physical-science universe: the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their contribution to cloud formation. CERN's researchers reported last month that in the conditions they've observed so far, these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre-cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds.

CERN

A cutting-edge physics experiment at the European Organization for Nuclear Research has scientists' heads in the clouds.

Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth's surface temperature since 1860.

"I had this idea that the real link could be between cloud cover and cosmic rays, and I wanted to try to figure out if it was a good idea or a bad idea," Mr. Svensmark told me from Copenhagen, where he leads sun-climate research at the Danish National Space Institute.

He wasn't the first scientist to have the idea, but he was the first to try to demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. Friis-Christensen, and they used satellite data to show a close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and cosmic-ray levels since 1979.

They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, "everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time." He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible."

Mr. Svensmark had been, at the very least, politically naïve. "Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into climate science." He says his work was "very much ignored" by the climate-science establishment—but not by CERN physicist Jasper Kirkby, who is leading today's ongoing cloud-chamber experiment.

On the phone from Geneva, Mr. Kirkby says that Mr. Svensmark's hypothesis "started me thinking: There's good evidence that pre-industrial climate has frequently varied on 100-year timescales, and what's been found is that often these variations correlate with changes in solar activity, solar wind. You see correlations in the atmosphere between cosmic rays and clouds—that's what Svensmark reported. But these correlations don't prove cause and effect, and it's very difficult to isolate what's due to cosmic rays and what's due to other things."

In 1997 he decided that "the best way to settle it would be to use the CERN particle beam as an artificial source of cosmic rays and reconstruct an artificial atmosphere in the lab." He predicted to reporters at the time that, based on Mr. Svensmark's paper, the theory would "probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole" of 20th-century warming. He gathered a team of scientists, including Mr. Svensmark, and proposed the groundbreaking experiment to his bosses at CERN.

Then he waited. It took six years for CERN to greenlight and fund the experiment. Mr. Kirkby cites financial pressures for the delay and says that "it wasn't political."

Mr. Svensmark declines entirely to guess why CERN took so long, noting only that "more generally in the climate community that is so sensitive, sometimes science goes into the background."

By 2002, a handful of other scientists had started to explore the correlation, and Mr. Svensmark decided that "if I was going to be proved wrong, it would be nice if I did it myself." He decided to go ahead in Denmark and construct his own cloud chamber. "In 2006 we had our first results: We had demonstrated the mechanism" of cosmic rays enhancing cloud formation. The IPCC's 2007 report all but dismissed the theory.

Mr. Kirkby's CERN experiment was finally approved in 2006 and has been under way since 2009. So far, it has not proved Mr. Svensmark wrong. "The result simply leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate," stresses Mr. Kirkby, quick to tamp down any interpretation that would make for a good headline.

This seems wise: In July, CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Die Welt that he was asking his researchers to make the forthcoming cloud-chamber results "clear, however, not to interpret them. This would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate-change debate."

But while the cosmic-ray theory has been ridiculed from the start by those who subscribe to the anthropogenic-warming theory, both Mr. Kirkby and Mr. Svensmark hold that human activity is contributing to climate change. All they question is its importance relative to other, natural factors.

Through several more years of "careful, quantitative measurement" at CERN, Mr. Kirkby predicts he and his team will "definitively answer the question of whether or not cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on clouds." His old ally Mr. Svensmark feels he's already answered that question, and he guesses that CERN's initial results "could have been achieved eight to 10 years ago, if the project had been approved and financed."

The biggest milestone in last month's publication may be not the content but the source, which will be a lot harder to ignore than Mr. Svensmark and his small Danish institute.

Any regrets, now that CERN's particle accelerator is spinning without him? "No. It's been both a blessing and the opposite," says Mr. Svensmark. "I had this field more or less to myself for years—that would never have happened in other areas of science, such as particle physics. But this has been something that most climate scientists would not be associated with. I remember another researcher saying to me years ago that the only thing he could say about cosmic rays and climate was it that it was a really bad career move."

On that point, Mr. Kirkby—whose organization is controlled by not one but 20 governments—really does not want to discuss politics at all: "I'm an experimental particle physicist, okay? That somehow nature may have decided to connect the high-energy physics of the cosmos with the earth's atmosphere—that's what nature may have done, not what I've done."

Last month's findings don't herald the end of a debate, but the resumption of one. That is, if the politicians purporting to legislate based on science will allow it.

Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.

Barry Nolan: The Boy Who Cried O'Reilly

I am responsible for promoting the Bedford MA GOP facebook page, allthough I am actually just a former member and not currently a member of the BRTC. The goal was to try and draw traffic to the Bedford GOP page from interested facebook friends.

The following is a facebook thread that occurred, when Barry Nolan, former local TV personality and former "host" of Hard Copy responded to the posted parody. Barry was fired from his positions in the media and now claims to work for the US Senate getting paid by the taxpayers to cruise facebook all day long and post nasty comments. He calls this issue research and advocacy. If he is not misconstruing his government paycheck, I call this blatant crony-ism and corruption. Our tax dollars at waste. Call your US Senator and complain if that bothers you.

Ralph Zazula via Bedford MA GOP:

The Talking Feds - Time for Real Change
www.youtube.com
Hot new video from RightChange.com illustrating the lack of Leadership by Obama and his administration. Features Chris Matthews and James Carville. Spread the word. We need to take America back from the Obama, Pelosi & Reid Socialist Agenda. Visit rightchange.com and help us take back congress!
July 13 at 11:42am

Barry Nolan
To call Obama and company "socialists" is to clearly demonstrate that you have no clue what socialism is. To support the extreme right wing is to demonstrate that you are rather loosely tethered to reality. It is a movement of boobs and morons.

Ralph Zazula
‎@Barry, you do know that is not real video, it is a parody. Right?

Please define what you mean by "you", "extreme right wing" and "loosely tethered", terms that are frequently misused or misunderstood.

Barry Nolan
Do I realize that a cartoon is not a "real video"? Yeah Ralphie. I got that. Thanks.

By "you" - I mean you - Ralphie - a person who refers to the "Socialist Agenda". If you think that things like responding to the real science-based issue of global warming is part of a "socialist agenda", then you have no clue what socialism is. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Like a nationalized oil company. Cap and trade is pure capitalism - seeking to address the very real uncaptured costs of using carbon based fuels. For instance, here in the East - we have long been forced to subsidize the cheap coal power produced in those mid West plants thru increased rates of asthma for our children, acid rain and all the associated losses of recreational assets that goes with that - such as dead lakes.

By "extreme right wing", I mean those who try to use fear tactics such as your "socialist agenda" nonsense in an effort to gut badly needed regulation, hobble all meaningful oversight, and to generally drive an agenda that serves only the wealthiest special interests while seeking to cripple trade unions and eviscerate crucial programs that help the middle class, such as Social Security.

By "loosely tethered" I mean that your fiscal and social policies are not based on facts, but rather on the self serving fiscal fantasies of the Far Right - (such as trickle down economics) and the anti-science, anti- Darwin, anti-gay social delusions of the religious right.

By "loosely tethered" I mean that the reality is that despite the right wing's claims to the contrary, anthropogenic Global Warming is real. The Bush era policy of gutting all regulation was a disaster. And the fiscal policy was even worse. The unfunded war and the unfunded mandates and the Bush tax cuts resulted in enormous deficits and a huge shift of wealth to the top one percent. And add on top of all that the Great Recession - which began almost a year before the last election.

By "loosely tethered" I mean that despite the GOP talking points, in reality, there have never been "death panels" there has been no Government take over of health care - and a thousand other demonstrable lies that you can read about in highly credible places like Politifact or Factcheck.org.

By "loosely tethered" I mean that the claims that the right has been making do not have an underlying basis in fact or reality. They have merely been "focus group" tested to see if they invoke the desired level of fear and confusion.

That's what I mean Ralph.

Ralph Zazula
And this is based upon this video. Hmmm an expert on Ralph Zazula.

Just so that you can know, I have not seen evidence that makes believe that Obama is committed to a socialist agenda, whatever you mean by that. I think that is what you stated about me. You, are wrong.

But from what you said, you are wrong about many things. Not just about me.

I on the other hand am always right. Not always but more often than not liberal, far too often a big government Hamiltonian, certainly an Elitist, and always right.

Now don't feel the need to apologize. It would be better for you to admit you are not always right and indeed, sometimes wrong.

Barry Nolan
Ralph,
In your original post - you state "we must take America back from the Obama, Pelosi & Reid Socialist agenda" These are the words you posted just a short ways above this - For you to say something like this indicates you either have no grasp of what socialism is - or no understanding of what has transpired in Congress and the economy in the past 18 months. The things I say come from actually reading original material - like sections of the bills in question (and no - I didn't read the entire health care bill - but I did read the section that Ms Palin said was about "death panels"- and know from reading it that she is full of crap). I also have spent time reading Federal Reserve reports and CBO reports and listening to the testimony at Congressional hearings - I do not get my information from listening to the demented citizens of GlennBeckistan.

Did you know that the GOP talking points on why the Financial Regulatory reform bill was bad were written before the bill was written? It was based on focus group testing. Or for that despite the GOP talking points - one of the big costs of the stimulus bill was a big tax cut for the middle class and small businesses? Or that according to the latest CBO analysis, our current top marginal tax rate is lower than at anytime since the Great Depression - except for the 5 years of the Reagan tax cut that drove deficits thru the roof? Did you know that a GOP appointed Governor of the Federal Reserve issued a report that found that the Community Reinvestment Act that the GOP blamed for the housing bubble - played no role in the housing bubble?

Or - just using info from your side - that conservative Senator Judd Gregg says the TARP bill was absolutely necessary and did just what it was intended to do? or that conservative Rep Bob Inglis of SC says that the Death Panel stuff was total hooey? Or that crazy Judge "Nuke 'em" Napolitano of Fox News says that there was plenty of evidence to indict both Bush and Cheney?
If you want - I can give you links to the CBO reports - the Fed Reserve findings - to graphs and stats that show that Bush economy had the slowed economic growth in the post WW2 era. These are facts from non-partisan sources - that you can look at for yourself. Or, you can continue in the RushBeck bubble - and continue to work to ruin the economy, the dreams of millions and the country in general.

Ralph Zazula
‎@Barry - this is facebook. I posted something someone else created. It may or may not reflect my views. It is not text I posted, it was the standard text attached by the creator of the video. I stated nothing.

Anyone familiar with facebook should understand that; apparently you do not. Do you normally use social networking or other means ofcommunicating without understanding the technology or the methodologies?

I know many things, but what I know is usually based upon facts not bs that was spoon fed to me. I do not believe every piece of crap the liars I am fond of spit out. Do you? Do you believe everything referenced? I never thought you were a degreed financial expert, but I could be wrong. Do you know that you made no reference to anything you know, you did or that you believe. Do you know that is why I ask you questions rather than just making assumptions. Do you know how rude it is to say "do you know" like you did repeatedly. Ask your mother.

As for my "side", what side is that? Is Senator Judd Gregg on my "side" and why?

So Barry, lets have a debate about what you know and what I know. Lets do it in public without teleprompters or google. Lets stream it live and record the entire exchange and show the video publicly without editing so that the world can see who knows what.

Then your "fact checkers" can tell us who got what wrong.

I'll give you a hint. Bone up on Monty Python quotes. Stupid Git is one of my faves.

Barry Nolan
Ralph - have you taken a look at the stuff you post? A video "by way of the Bedford GOP", the piece in praise of the Tea Party, the video for the Republican candidate and the link to and praise of the Conservative candidate? It might please you to treat people like they just rode into town on the back of a turnip truck whenever it suits you - butdissembling about your "side" like this only makes you even less cridible.

And as for manners, one of the fist things I learned about how to behave in polite society was that you don't throw out stuff about polictics or religion unless you want an argument on your hands. The notification of your GOP video came unsolicitied into my e-mail. I replied in kind.

Do I believe things like the CBO analysis of historical tax rates? Why yes I do. CBO is a non-partisan arm of the government. Here is a link to the info:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_rates.pdf

And if you would like to have a debate - I would be delighted - I have spent the last year and a half working as a senior staff member for the US Senate on Economic issues. We actually check facts here all the time. So I will be happy to give you a head start - welcome to the Argument Clinic and happy birthday.

Michael McNeil
Barry-
Tom Bergeron told me to say hi.

Ralph Zazula
‎@Barry - Barry, have you taken a look at the stuff I post? What an idiotic thing to say, "A video 'by way of the Bedford GOP' the video for the Republican candidate and the link to and praise of the Conservative candidate?", unless you know why I post anything, and you don't! There are hundreds of clues and you haven't learned much from any of them.

Yes, I can believe that you would work for Democrats on the government dole ripping people off. Legal corruption. No experience, lack of critical thinking, doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion. Yup, clearly a qualified Democrat. If that was the best thing you could brag about you might rethink bragging.

I am not sure how comfortable you thought that turnip truck was, but please explain to me again why that video I posted on the tea party was in praise? You fool. Did you even watch it? Is your brain that defective? It is an anti-Tea Party insult video, which I guess to you means praise. Maybe I'm a racist because of my support for for white supremacists. Draw whatever bull conclusions you want. Most people look at what I say, not just the wide variety of contradicting items I post. Or when they don't know what I mean, ask questions.

If you have or had a mother, she would not think you were polite. I came here for an argument. It says so right in my profile, which you might read before proclaiming yourself an expert on what Ralph Zazula means. This is not an argument. This is a display of your intellect and how it is misused. We have not stated a case back and forth with supporting arguments. I posted something I thought people would find interesting, maybe humorous, perhaps intriguing, maybe make someone think. You decided that it was worth a rant about me. That insulting display was not an argument. It's not even just contradiction!

I may be wrong now and then but I am more accurate than the CBO. You twist CBO numbers for a living and then swear by them. Like non-partisan makes government honest and accurate. That is what you meant by that statement right?

I did not send you an email. This is facebook. Learn how it works.

As for how to have an argument, answer the questions that I posed to you. Or look like an idiot because you can't.

When is the debate? When you do not show up, what will be your wimpy excuse? Since you have this at a 3rd grade level, chicken.

Barry Nolan
Ralph - you really are a moron and waste of time. You don't read what you write and you don't understand what other people write. I did not refer to your Crayon video about the Tea Party - but I referred to the printed piece by your pal Tom wrote in praise of the Tea Party. go back and read it - it is in praise of the Tea Party.

See this is how you get things so wrong - because you can't be bothered to read things with any care - go back and read it again. And you are more accurate than the CBO? That would be based on....? What your mother told you?

You know - if you do understand social media as you claim - that if you post material like your right wing nonsense - iFacebook autmoatically sends notices out - by way of an e-mail to those who have agreed to your request to befriend you - as was the case with me. If you want to send your conservative drivel out fine - you have every right. But I have just as much right to call you out for the sorry fool you are.

And apparently think you somehow have the power or the right to tell me what the rules of the game are - and what questions I must answer. But you know what Ralph? You aren't powerful - you get no say over me. You don't get to tell me - or anyone else - what questions they must answer and how they must conduct themselves on Facebook.

Get back on your meds Ralph. You are frothing at the mouth and it is less than attractive.

Ralph Zazula
‎@Barry, so you are wimping out of the debate in public. Chicken.

Barry Nolan
Go ahead Ralph - state a thesis - make a statement - claim a fact. Go ahead. You want to defend the GOP? Praise the Tea Party? Defend the Bush tax cuts? Explain away torture? Locate the WMD's? Go ahead. You want a debate? Get going. All you are doing is what the Tea Party types do so well. Whine.

Tara Vargas
And YOU Barry, what in hell do you bring to the discussion, lol, a bunch of NONrelevant grabage..

What YOUR up AGIANST and why progressives are LOSING:

...common sense...

✓✓✓✓✓✓✓CONSTITUTION
✓✓✓I'm FOR torture(it acually makes me SMILE)
✓✓✓✓FOR bombing terrorist/blowing their heads OFF(still grinin')
✓✓✓FOR saving BABIES in America(love innocent life)
✓✓✓✓AGAINST sex in schools(we all know about your messiah Kevin"fistgate" Jennings-PERVERTS)
✓✓✓✓✓AGAINST the federal reserve
✓✓✓FOR the abolishment of UNIONS and their tax payer based pensions
✓✓✓✓CAPITALISM
and the "How you know if your a REAL AMERICAN" the list goes on.... :}

BUT, MOST IMPORTANT, I'M AGAINST PARASITES LIKE YOU who aid and abet the distruction of MY FREEDOM... Everyday I take pride in planning and acting to YOUR demise.. IT'S WORKING, you see the POLLS LATELY? LOL... LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

Barry Nolan
Right -you are for the Constitution - the one the prohibits torture. And the Tea Party wants to repeal the 17th amendment to end direct election of Senators and they don't like that part in the Constitution about birthright citizenship. And that Habeas Corpus thing and that warrant required for a search thing. Right. The Constitution.

And you are oh so for personal freedom - except the freedom to make decisions about your own body - or about sex practices, or who you marry or about who you pray to and when to pray - about end of life decisions - about the right to collective bargaining - yeah Freedom - you are big on that.

Yes, it is delightful how you and your loathsome hypocritical colleagues offer the freedom to be just like you - but that is where you draw the line. And the Federal Reserve? That was basically Hamilton's idea - one of those wacky founding fathers you are always going on about.

Yeah - the progressive thing? it is working - for me and for the country. We pulled the country back from the edge of total financial collapse. That collapse is just one of the reasons The assholes like you got their butts handed to them in the last election. Because you lied, you were corrupt and you were incompetent - and you left this nation is near ruins.

Yes, we took the House, the Senate and the White House. Do polls go up and down? Sure. Did you and your fellow hypocrites say that it mattered when Bush was in office? No, not then.

And by the way - you want to talk about perverts? How about David Vitter? How about your swinging Tea Bagger down in South Carolina who had all the extra marital partner? How about the Mark Souder, the fellow who did all the "abstinence" baloney and then had to resign because he had been carrying on with his aide? Yeah, go on, tell me more about the perverts. I am sure you know a lot about it.

Ed Richard
makes no sense to pick out a handful of incidents or a couple of people and use that to label an entire movement. Given that no party has a monopoly on good ideas, if you take a non-bias look at conservative vs. liberal ideas over say the last 40 years, overall, when followed properly, conservatism is much closer to the ideas that have proven to work for more people more often. A much greater record of advancement in this country of the years has come from individuals being free enough and having incentives to be successful, and liberalism has nothing to do either one of these. Liberal ideas and policies tie people together, are based on guilt, are based on false premises (such as govt knows best, which cannot be any more false), pit groups against each other and eventually end in general misery and waste. We have seen liberal policies creates multiple new problems for each one it attempts to fix in a permanent quest for the unattainable idea of utopia as determined by politicians. The real goal should be with rare exception, allowing individual to determine what that is for themselves, with limited govt involvement...move away from the model, and you have chaos like we are experiencing now.

Ed Richard
just to save others the time, i though bush was a terrible president because while he used the word to describe himself while getting elected, he did not act even close to a conservative in many areas such as spending, so he as well contributed to chaos and waste as the size of govt grew on his watch. Real conservatism is the best (not perfect) set ideas so far and i remain open to a better set, but till then, i think you have to go with has proven to be better (without any party glasses on) and closer to the founders vision

Barry Nolan
While you make a thoughtful presentation and an appealing pitch - if you look at the metrics of economic performance over the years - you find that under Democratic Presidents - there was more economic growth and more job growth. Under Democratic presidents - the number of people living in poverty goes down - under Republicans - it has gone up. I will be happy to give you sites for the info - but is is all bean counter kind of stuff - that simply records GDP and job growth from sources like the BLS.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that personal freedom is devoutly to be desired. That is why I prefer a liberal Congress and liberal White House. To play to its conservative social base - Republicans tend to go along with religious and social conservative calls for restrictions on personal freedom. They look to enforce a top down homogeneity.

The idea that liberalism is about guilt is a Rush Limbaugh style canard. Liberals believe not in guilt - but in government as a fair mediator between the conflicting claims of the powerful and the powerless. The EPA is a good example. Back in the old West - if a guy upstream from my campsite kept taking a piss while I was filling my canteen - it was not unreasonable for me to go punch him in the nose. It is a bit crowded for that now. But the EPA mediates between your freedom to pollute and my freedom to breath clean air and drink clean water. Osha mediates between the power of a Corporation motivated by profit and a laborer who would like to keep all his parts - and still make a living.

If you take a look at the latest CBO analysis of tax rates and incomes by quintiles - going back to 1979, it is quite clear that the main thing that Reaganomics really accomplished was a massive shift of wealth from the middle class - to the top one percent. The top one percent didn't suddenly start working twice as hard - or twice as long as they used to - they weren't creating more value or wealth - they were just being allowed to take more of it from the pie we all made together.

Plenty of good conservatives that I like and even admire. You sound like one I could enjoy having coffee with. But the Tea Party types - make me weep for the country I love.

Tara Vargas
and your for terrorist blowing us up....

I can't stupify myself and twist history to believe the antiAmerican antiINDIVIDUALISM DEMONcrats have done ANYTHING but harm to our soveirgnty and freedom...

All the Redistribtuion via social programs, more good?
PLEASE!!! who in the HELL do you think your kidding??

RUSH is absolutley right, don't you think if LIBERALS had appeal or could evan mesure up to his %99.9 of the time accuracy, they'd be the ones with all the listeners? and iin the case of television, news views?
You COULD NEVER compare yourself to RUSH... it's completely laughable, good for a chuckle...

CBO< when have they EVER been right?? hahahhaha wow..

Reaganonomics, to begin with, Regan wasn't president untill 81'm so any effective econimic measure couldn't have diagnosed untill after he had effective concurrent quarters of growth(your mention of the CBO who's always INACCURATE). That growth was met through the facilitation of TAX CUTS(not a liberals philosphy no matter WHAT spin you put on it), tax cuts for the rich, gave CEO's room and confidence to invest into their business, therefor expanding and eventually hiring.

LIBERALS trying to take credit for Reagan is absurd or comparing themselves, another HUGE eye roll and a chuckle...

The pie we all made together is a free country, not wealth, we are individuals and have a right to make and keep as much as we earn.Nobody has a right to TAKE what I worked for.


Ed Richard
One of the biggest things i admire in people is their ability to remove bias out of everything, which is very rare from what I can see...think about it logically, this is one of the best if not the best countries in the history of the world and one of the core, foundational concepts that made it that way is the legal system and at its foundation,is the jury system which ruthlessly eliminates all bias in its search for the real truth..if it is uncovered that a juror has some bias, they are dismissed ...its suggests many things including that the truth is something that exists on its own, not something that is determined by an individuals opinion of realty...bias is a blocking factor from uncovering the real, independent truth...you can't make up your own version of the truth (such as the tea party people are racist). my unbiased view is that most people, and every liberal i have ever talked to or listened to has a pre-formed opinion and any facts that happen to come in that challenge that pre-set position is simply altered to somehow fit the original premise, even if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (this is backwards)

I am not a "tea part person" but removing all bias from the situation, they are OVERWHELMINGLY people who are justifiably upset based on real results that the centrally controlled government over many years has grown too big, too unresponsive, too self-serving, not really resolving anything, and taxing too much....among a long list of ineffective actions...now, taking an unbias look at history, without any bias or allegiance to a party, long held postilion or allowing ideology to cloud accurate judgement, the main questions would appear to be IS IT TRUE? and regardless of what party label I have attached to myself ARE THEY RIGHT? EVEN IF IT MEANS IF THEY ARE RIGHT, I HAVE BEEN WRONG FOR A LONG TIME...

You grow when you WANT to be wrong as part of the journey to attach yourself to the real, genuine, unbiased, independent truth at anytime...I have very very few permanent positions on things..when a slightly better idea comes along, as determined by history, not me, i immediately attach myself to it...the lack of 99% of people who do not do this is why i think the country is crumbling.. so many people are bought and sold permanently in some way or protecting some turf or ideology eliminates the best ideas from surviding....its not my OPINION that they the tea party are right, an unbiased look at history says it.. without trusting unbiased sources either...and I have no desire to twist what they say as something else, call them names for their opinion, take a few of them who might have misbehaved as a way to label all of them or anything else...the bottom line for me is if those tea party people get their way, their views don't negatively impact me in any way..they want to be left alone and want to leave me alone with I don't interpret as selfishness, bigoted, racist or anything else bad...if the tea party opponents get their way and their views are implemented, it negatively affects me, my family and my kids for years to come in many negative ways including chaining me at the ankle to everyone else so that if one fails, we all fail... doesn't matter what you call it collectivist/socialist/communist, etc.. anything close to those ideals and principles (which are very close to democratic platform) have been proven for sure, beyond any doubt to not work, cause dependency on govt, stifle individual freedom, contrast with the founders vision completely, negatively affect the culture, cripple individual incentives and are not sustainable...period

Barry Nolan
Tara - you have no need to try to "stupify" yourself - you are already clearly there. The information about tax rates that comes from the CBO is just accounting - it's numbers that you add up and divide. It is not opinion or projection. The numbers don't lie - unlike your draft dodging, college drop-out, gay, drug-addled, viagra using hero - RushFatbaugh.

And economic growth and job creation numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Again - it is just bean counting - numbers that third graders can add up. They are not opinion. They don't lie.

The President who had the single best record ever for job creation was Clinton. The top three for job creation and economic growth are Democrats. Democrats have the best record going all the way back to Truman. The best records for GDP growth are all held by Democrats. These are not opinions - these are numbers - things arrived at by simply counting real world things.

From 1981 to 1989 - the average household income of the middle quintile of the US population - the middle of the middle class - went up 8% - total. That means the vast percentage of working people -the millions and millions of people who actually makes things and create wealth and deliver services - saw their total income go up just 8% - about 1% a year. But for the wealthiest 1% - their income went up 74% in those years. Those people didn't suddenly start working 74% harder - or 74% smarter. They had money transferred to them by the policy whims of Reagan. If it was all so great - it would not have led to the terrible recession of '88 - the budget deficits Reagan created and all of George the First's "read my lips" problems.

You can find the income data here -
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf

and a little 5th grade math - if you can manage it - will give you the percentages of increase.

You want to talk about income redistribution? There you have it. Income - and all the wealth created by all the labor of all the millions of hard working Americans - is deftly transferred into the pockets of a very few. That is wealth and income transfer on a staggering scale.

Capitalism and business success in general require the use of metrics - you have to rigorously measure performance and determine what really works and what doesn't and respond accordingly.

And if you use real world numbers - and real world facts - instead of the nonsense that people like poor drug addled Fatbaugh pull out of their butts - Right Wing economics fails the test - is only works for the wealthiest few. It is not opinion. It is numbers - facts - reality. But then - people like you - clearly don't care about that. You prefer the numbing comfort of your rage at "those people" - you sad, silly, angry little creature.

Tara Vargas
mhmmmmmm... and your superior stupidity is showing..

are you faulting RUSH for being HUMAN or getting laid?

CAN WE SAY J E A L O U S !

I'm so sure you don't have a past??

Why would you call RUSH "gay", do you have a PROBLEM with GAY PEOPLE? ((Aren't you the little homophob! does you commie base know of your traitor mentality?))

His wife isn't a man.... pretty laughable and demolishes your arguement..You're obsessed with your own lies, climb out of the echo chamber..

CLINTON'S SUCCESS WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY REPUBLICANS PUSHING HIM TO THE CENTER! also laughable, you spin is getting rusty..

AND, andddddddddddd: CLINTON KILLED INNOCENT AMERICANS and their KIDS IN WACO, so not a really good example if that's your "hero"... a statement like that defines the left...

the whole link thing, ya um, when I need a "estimate" that's off by about 90%, I'll look into it.. I rely on facts and as history has shown, CBO is far from them.. only billions/trillions off every estimate..

back to the SUBJECT.. REAGAN, stay away from the comparison, it makes you look desperate and clingy to the people you trash..

((noticed)) Your picture looks cheap and outdated, nice "turtle neck" rofl... I can see why you'd hate someone as stylish and competent as RUSH..

Tara Vargas
UPDATE!!!

O'Socialist approval is at 26%, HAHHAHAHHAHA :D

well, would love to stay and laugh at you but I have another day of work lobbying against YOU and your bootlicking commie loving friends.

Tara Vargas
‎26%... rofl, what a J O K E !

Barry Nolan
See - you can't handle the facts. In your tightly spun world -

If the economy prospers under Reagan - it was only Reagan who did it. if it craters under Bush the first - it was - somebody else's fault. If it craters after 8 years of Bush - it was Clinton who did it. If it prospers under Clinton - it was Reagan who did it.

You live in a fantasy laced Alice in Wonderland world - where you and the Fatbaughs never take any personal responsibility. Not for 9-11, not for the phoney WMD claims, not for letting Bin Laden escape, not for the economic collapse, not for the transfer of wealth to the richest elite.

Reagan's supported the Arms for hostages program - which provided missiles to Iran - and gave money to right wing death squads. He gave intelligence support to Saddam Hussein and armed the Mujahedin in Afghanistan - the same wonderful folks who later became the Taliban. He caused the deaths of thousands - thru sheer stupidity and incompetence.

So show me in the data - where I am wrong about the impact on millions of Reagonimcs? Show me the facts - show metrics that proves me wrong. Or you can just whine and rage and stamp your silly little feet.

Facts matter. You don't.

Barry Nolan
oh gee - a lobbyist. What a surprise. You venal corrupt ignorant piece of nonsense.

Tara Vargas
I lobby for freedom... If that's not obvious, what would be..

Once again, your superior stupidity shines...

so are you or aren't you a homophob? Why would you bring up sexual orientation? That statement CLEARLY shows your hypocrisy..

and WHY would your praise a baby killer like clinton?

DURING Reagan presidency unemployment DECLINED from it's high of 10.8% down to %5.3... Less people unemployed whiich means JOBS were created, not fuzzy math "jobs saved" BULLSHIT, just common sense TAX CUTS. It's not evan up for arguement, just to BASIC...

Most important message from that is, REAGAN didn't BLAME CARTER he just embraced free market based solutions...

:}

did I mention 26% approval? lol

Tara Vargas
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ CAPITALIST :}

Kathy Richard
Barry, are you still an anchor man or did you get promoted to Democrat spin doctor?

Barry Nolan
Good try with the unemployment stats Tara - but what you fail to mention is that while unemployment when Reagan took office was 7.5 % - it then rose steadily over the next two years to 10.8% - then fell to 5.3% at the end of his term - It then went right back up under George the First - to peak at 7.8%.

When Clinton took over - the unemployment rate stood at 7.3% and went steadily down to 3.9%. Then Bush the second took over and things went rather sour - except that is - for the wealthies elite.

Facts matter.

Look it up for yourself at the BLS site:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Under Reagan - the poverty rate for families rose from 10.3% to 12.3%.
When Clinton took office - the poverty rate feel steadily to 8.7%

Look it up for yourself at the Census site: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/families.html

Facts matter.

Under Reagan - the average annualized growth in Real GDP was 3.3%. Under Carter it was 3.4% - under Clinton it was 3.7 %. Under Kennedy it was 5.5% and under Johnson - it was 5.1%.

Facts matter.

Under Reagan, the average annual change in non-farm payroll jobs was an increase of 2.1%. Under Bush I, it was 0.6%. Under Clinton, it was 2.4%. Under Carter, it was 3.1%.

Facts matter.

And for Ms. Richard - a simply stunning Prince Valiant thing you have going there.

Kathy Richard
Ouch! I've been wounded by Ron Burgundy!!

Tara Vargas
well, that's your spin....

Reagan Tax Cuts= reduced unemployment= jobs! Can we say DUH!

26% approvallllllllllllllllllllll..

BARRYyyyyyyY, you never answered on YOUR comment about using the term "gay" llike a homophob...

are you a LEFTIST HYPOCRITE HOMOPHOB?

Barry Nolan
Reagan tax cuts benefited the rich - and resulted in a temporary dip in unemployment. More people fell into poverty. Wages for the middle class stagnated. But the rich did get richer.

Facts matter.

Other economic and tax policies - those promulgated by Democratic Presidents - have been far more effective in growing jobs, growing the economy, and reducing poverty. Those are facts - the hard numbers. There is no spin in those numbers. You can look this up. But you won't - because facts do not matter to you.

And of course I have no negative attitudes whatsover about the GLBT community - but I do have utter contempt for those hypocrites on the right - those like Rush and Larry Craig and George Rekers - (the anti-gay conservative minister who went traveling with his "rent-a-boy") - who lobby in public against equal treatment for gay and Lesbians in our schools and in our military and in our courts - but then in their private life - they whistle a very different tune. As has been your pattern - your argument is about your own invented facts - your own hot air. You are all about nonsense and anger.

In a new TIME poll, published yesterday, 49% of respondents say they approve of the President's performance, compared to 45% who disapprove.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2003953,00.html

Facts still matter.

Kathy Richard
Time magazine....now THERE is an unbiased credible source..what the Boston Globe or the New York Times didn't poll this week?


Barry Nolan
the latest polls from various sources -

Bloomberg: The public’s disenchantment with the president’s policies doesn’t extend to voter feelings about Obama himself, as he gets a job approval rating of 52 percent and personally is viewed favorably by 55 percent.

Fox: Approve 47% Disapprove 45%

Marist: 50% view the president favorably while 43% have an unfavorable impression of him.

Do you ever bother to read anything? or do you just go the Palin route?

Kathy Richard
Mr. Hard Copy, I expected something better from you than the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I". Should we call Joy Behar and see if she will write some better insults for you? But while we are on the subject of polls, I notice you left out Rasmussen and the -17 % Presidential index rating Obama has as of this morning. (Here comes the response about how Time Magazine isn't biased, but Rasmussen is.)

Barry Nolan
and the findings of Rasumussen - which always shades a bit conservative - are basically in line with the other polls -

"46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

Rasmussen is what poor cherry picking Tara was looking at and misrepresenting. If polls matter to you - then Google the polls for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party -

Gallup: Palin - 44% rate her favorably and 47% unfavorably.

Or look at this poll question from Fox:

Do you think Democratic policies or Republican policies are more
likely to improve the condition of the country?

among independent voters - Independents 32% favored Dems, 25% favored Repubs

See for yourself:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/071510_ObamaStimulus.pdf

You live in a bubble - all you let in is information that confirms your predjudices and affirms your beliefs. The facts are out there - and they are stacked high against you and the right wing.

Kathy Richard
Ok, we've been called " morons", "boobs" and a "waste of time", (yet somehow, you're still HERE!!!!!!!) AND you've played the Palin card. I am waiting patiently for you to call me racist...please don't disappoint.
How 'bout this Bar...keep pulling up the polls...make sure you keep enlightening all us poor bubble boys and girls, and why don't we all check back in November after the midterms and you can see how relevant your data is then...remember, the Globe had Martha Coakley up by, what was it, 18 a week before the election.....catch you on TV....oh, wait.....

Barry Nolan
So calling names is bad right? You going to stick to that? Really? I will be interested to see how you do with that one.

And Yeah - aI am fine with having elections. I think they matter. Just like that last one did. And I didn't like Martha Coakley either. She ran a terrible campaign. Scott Brown to his credit has cast a couple of decent votes on issues that caused him to be attacked by the Tea Party types.

And yeah - polls are just polls - they aren't votes. But if you want to try to use a poll to make a point - it is rather hypocritical to refuse to recognize a credible poll that has news you don't happen to like.

Kathy Richard
I did a quick check on how many names have been called here, and who called them. You really want to fall on that sword, Barry?? I urge everyone to reread the thread. Just the facts ,as the man said. Still think we're a waste of time? Or will you be blathering on for another day. Let me know so I can alert you fan club.

Ralph Zazula
three out of four people make up 75% of the population. All of them are going to die. Pretty sure it's Bush's fault. OK, lets all put away the statistics. Let's just use statistics we all agree on from reliable sources we all accept.

We know enough about Barry from what he has written. He knows enough about all of us to know that there is very little respect between us for each other. We know Barry is rude, and we know he is sensitive to being demeaned whether he deserves being put down or not.

Barry still began this by his completely inappropriate response to attacking me for posting something he wants me to take responsibility for. He has absurd views on the Tea Party, and I expect he understand little about what The United States are all about.

That is why I challenged him to a debate, where I could easily expose his weakness and lack of knowledge. He has agreed to meet, to debate, without tele-prompters and without the Internet. To have this recorded and streamed live, available without editing, a tactic that was used so often to change the presentation of the "truth" as "journalist".

We are pretty sure that Barry will not show up. He has used his dismissive tone to talk about how I waste his time. He has not said he is backing out of his commitment at this point. He does seam to have plenty of time (he inferred that he does this facebook blathering while on the taxpayer's dime, but he is known to not provide real information, so who knows who is paying for this) to spend on one facebook thread about a parody. You might think Barry a bit touchy. Perhaps this is do to his racist role in a corrupt government. Maybe he has always been touchy. Who can say?

It does beg to ask the question. Barry what was your greatest piece of journalism and was it a piece so serious and so controversial that it forced you out of the business for taking such a difficult stand, talking truth to power? What was it?

Does anyone have any favorite Barry clips? I don't yet.


Barry Nolan
I fully understand that Tea Party Types come in many flavors - just as Progressives do. But here are some of the things I have seen or heard first hand

I walked thru the Tea Party rally down here in DC -and saw their signs and heard the screams for myself. Yes indeed, some of the signs were about old fashioned conservative issues about tax policy etc. But some of them were ugly and racist, some contained veiled threats of violence. I saw them. I was there

I have listened to interviews where Tea Party types have criticized the Civil Rights law and found fault with Kagan for admiring Thurgood Marshall - one of our greatest, most courageous Supreme Court Justices who as a lawyer, won the decision of Brown v Board of education.

I have listened to Tea Party darling Rad Paul refuse to answer the question "how old is the earth?" because he did not want to be quoted giving them the answer the religious right in the audience were fishing for - 6,000 years

I have watched Tea Party types deny the underlying science of climate Change - and of Darwin

I have heard Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle explain how even minors - children- who have been raped by their father - should be forced by the state to bear an unwanted child.

I have interviewed Rick Santorum who explained why all birth control was wrong and how the "pursuit of happiness" ( that little thing they talk about in the Declaration of Independence) had just gone off the rails.

I have heard Tea Party types go on about how they love the Constitution - and then go on to excuse the suspension of Habeas Corpus ( a right which pre-date the Magna Carta), the use of torture - clearly prohibited - and the use of warrantless wire -taps - expressly prohibited.
The Tea Party in Arizona wants all their candidates to agree to push for the repeal of the 17th Amendment which provides for the direct election of Senators - and there are many Tea Party types who want to ignore the Constitutionally mandated birthright citizenship.

I have heard your great prophet Glen Beck say " if you hear anyone in your church talk about social justice - run away - leave them immediately" - even though I have repeatedly read the words of Jesus in the bible that admonish us "do unto others as you would have done unto you" "if you wish to get into heaven - first sell everything you have and give it to the poor" "it is easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven" "as you do unto the least of them - so you do unto me."

I have heard you tell us that there were WMD's when there weren't - that the Mission was accomplished when it wasn't - that the economy was sound when it was tanking - that there were Death Panels when there was no such things - and there was a government take over of the banks - when it just didn't happen.

You go on about Freedom when you want to deny the basic freedom to marry who they please - or to serve our country in the military to the Gay and Lesbian community, you want to deny women the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions - prevent informed end of life decisions - tell us when we should pray in schools - and tell people which language they must speak and prevent people from engaging in collective bargaining in an attempt to level the playing field just a little.

And here in this forum - to support your failed policies and rejected ideologies - all you present as arguments - are personal attacks on me. You do not attempt to argue the facts of the economic performance of your heroes - because their performance can not be defended by the real world facts. So instead - you do this. You are sorry, sad little people - filled with fire but no light. Sound but no sense.

You are a little twerp Ralph. You have not yet made one statement about facts - about reality - about the economy - that has any basis in facts. Not one. If you want a debate - then make a statement. State a thesis. Go on. Try it. It might do your soul some good. it might help you grow a real spine.

Kathy Richard
My favorite clip, and it can be found on Youtube, is his Hard Copy expose, "Is Britney Spears Bipolar?" Indeed it was worthy of an Edward R. Murrow award. But what I really want to know, Barry...when you were fired from Comcast for protesting Bill O'Reilly winning a Governors award Emmy (that you apparently coveted,)... did the Obama administration do a "nation wide search" before they hired you to work for the U.S. Senate after the fact??? or was it, as you were quoted in an article about the incident, a case of..."“Overpaid White Guy Gets Fired from Cushy Job for Shooting Mouth Off.” (and then gets hired by the Left as payback)....BTW, I thought Liberals were the champions of free speech...did you REALLY think you could get Bill O'Reilly fired from the airwaves for speaking his mind? Or does "hate speech" apply only to Fox or Rush and not Rev. Wright or the NAACP or Black Panthers .( Barry..You may insert an insult about my hair or intellect here) Just don't use the ones you have already spewed like "moron" or "boob" or "sorry fool" or "teabagger"...be more creative....after all...you are a paid government employee. you work for me.....work for your check.

Barry Nolan
See what I mean - you can't deal with facts - with policy -with issues - all you can do is take the Rush Limbaugh route - and launch a personal attack - with imagined elements - this is why you lost - this is why you suck.

Kathy Richard
‎"This is why you suck"....Oh Barry, how can we miss you when you won't go away! (For the record, my 16 year old would have a better come back)
And, once again, I direct anyone to reread this thread and ascertain personal attacks. (Lucky for you, I didn't take offense to the attack on my hairstyle right out of the box, or I would have had to post the Youtube videos of your stellar career...but you did have awesome John Edwards hair!!!) You have NO idea who Ralph is, or what he does for his family and his community! YOU started this thread (on our government dime, by the way...don 't you have any work to do to help the pathetic economy???. Is yours another government job where you sit at a computer all day on facebook? Another job that's "non-essential" right there folks! Cut your salary, and maybe some poor community somewhere can hire a fireman back!....I am trying to hold back, but you are getting dangerously close to being called a lot worse than all of the 24 personal attacks you have spewed on this thread.
Really Barry, I am sorry you didn't end up being Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck or Tom Bergeron or Ryan Seacrest....sometimes it's just not in the card...but for a high powered celebutard (my first real insult..yes I will own it!) you certainly have a lot of time to flame the little people. You know, all us bubble people....but here's the good news...now that your boy has nationalized health care, you can afford the therapy you so desperately need to find out why you still need to be the bully in the playground at your age....see you in Novermber, Comrade!

Ralph Zazula
‎@Barry - You are correct that I have refused to argue with someone here who sounds like an idiot. And I wont here, in this thread, in this forum that has never been the time or the place or the format. No I want a place where you, the deaf by choice can be forced to have to listen. I want a forum where a man blind by choice can be forced to expose his blindness in front of all to see. I want a forum where your racist ideas and destructive motives can be exposed to so that those you have tortured, those you have hurt and those you have harmed will have the chance to see you humiliated for the corrupt slave master you are. I want a forum where the relatives of the people you have contributed to their ultimate demise, can see that you did not do it for the "children" or because you did not know any better.

Stop your pouting about how you have great arguments. What you saw through your rose color glasses is not an argument. You see nothing and your perspective is formed by your greed and hate.

And why do you think your views carry so much weight of force? Is it because of your pathetic career on TV as a prompter reader? Is it because of your bootlicking of your Senatorial puppet masters? Is it because of some wonderful creative force you have brought to music and the arts when you gave the reviews you did not write for artists you knew had no talent and yet, those artists were still better people, more talented than you? Is it for the millions of lives you have "improved" by actively working to deny freedom?

I will take a stab at the answer. You have no accomplishments. You have a huge ego. You were hired for your boyish good looks and your willingness to say what was scripted and probably for whatever boss made you sleep with him. You were fired for letting your inflated ego and self worth get in the way of the truth. You made more noise than you made money and you attacked someone who was worth more dollars and had more power than you. And everyone around you, even the people who are sick of O'Reilly know you are the very definition of piteous. By the way there are more people who are tired of the no spin shtick than ever even bothered to learn your name. That still leaves him more viewers paying attention to him in day than you had listen to you in your entire career.

Everyone laughed at what a fool you were when you proclaimed you spoke truth to power because they all knew you were just a capuchin monkey that had lost his ability to dance in step. You were right when you said you should be raking leaves for your "friends". Ol' Black Joe is still pickin' cotton in more ways than you could ever realize.

Now you are a guy who has to have the last word, even though your mutterings are boring and like you, of no real worth. You will have to respond to this with perhaps tales of how you won a Nobel prize, or an emmy, or some silly plaque they gave you in fifth grade for being a pretty boy. Nothing you have won can possibly be worth anything. They give that kind of meaningless political crap out to your heroes, the Obama's, the Gore's. They are worthless, like you are.

Trust me, you are not the first to declare yourself the winner, that your opponent sucks. Coming from a person with absolutely no evidence of any integrity, that means, well to quote someone as intellectual as you "shit".

You will not be the last chicken-shi* wimp to run away in the end.

Hmmm. And it may be that I could be your biggest fan. If you grow a spine.

Ready to meet in person? I promise I won't ask for an autograph.

Ralph Zazula
Cry Baby Barry has unfriended me on facebook. "Stupid Git"

Screenshot of Barry Nolan's facebook page:

Additional facebook screen shots from the thread: