American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Sorry.

Rupert Murdoch is an Australian billionaire with an interest in media. He publishes 175 newspapers and owns 35 TV stations.

Keith Rupert Murdoch, AC, KSG (English pronunciation: /ˈruːpɚt ˈmɚdɑk/; born 11 March 1931) is an Australian-American media mogul and the Chairman, and CEO of News Corporation.

Beginning with one newspaper in Adelaide, Murdoch acquired and started other publications in his native Australia before expanding News Corp. Into the United Kingdom, United States and Asian media markets. Although it was in Australia in the late 1950s that he first dabbled in television, he later sold these assets, and News Corp's Australian current media interests (still mainly in print) are restricted by cross-media ownership rules. Murdoch's first permanent foray into TV was in the USA, where he created Fox Broadcasting Company in 1986. In the 2000s, he became a leading investor in satellite television, the film industry and the Internet, and purchased a leading American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 418086]WT,

You are wrong on so many levels.

The discussion was about the success of FOX News in reaching an otherwise un-served conservative audience, not about how many other media outlets one of it's owners may also own.

Really? How? I'd like to know, because when a union member says things like that, what they usually mean is that the employer stopped dancing to the union's tune.

Please name a single [i]"Right Wing worker killing politician"[/i], because I don't know any, although I certainly know lots of "[b][i]Left Wing [u]job[/u] [u]killing[/u] Politicians[/i][/b]".

How exactly is Rupert Murdoch trying to kill your pension?

I don't know who you are talking about. I was born poor, and everything I've got I worked for and earned, and along the way I've NEVER asked for or received a single check for overtime, a single contribution to my health care or my future pension, or even so much as a single paid holiday, so you can stick that silver spoon up your ass.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Man, this is going to be fun!

I just love how the libtards get parochial (that means "Uppity" Esten) when they cannot defend their position with facts. But then again Esten, I'm sure you don't let the facts clutter your keppe."Big Boys". Really? Is that all you can come up with?

Let me help you stay on point here. You posted, and I paraphrase here, that "de-regulatory policies of the GWB administration were directly responsible for the economic meltdown", yet you offered no example of such policies either in your first post or in your second, MSNBC / HuffPo inspired diatribe.

I, on the other hand, gave two examples of government meddling, one regulatory (Community Reinvestment Act) , and one de-regulatory (Grahmm-Leach-Bliley) , both signed into law by liberal Democrat Presidents, which were directly responsible (the sown seeds) for the debacle that started mid October 2007.

The more the libs talk, or in this case post, the more they show their ass. Keep it comming bro. This is a hoot!

BF.

[QUOTE=Esten; 418074]Looks like David Koch has upped his funding of internet trolls.

Sorry BlueFalcon, we have a higher caliber of discussion here. You're clearly not ready to debate with the Big Boys. Go back to Fox News or HotAir of whereever you came from and have them send over someone more qualified. [/QUOTE]

It was also under Clinton that Brooksley Borne (sp?) was prevented from regulating derivatives.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;418090]It was also under Clinton that Brooksley Borne (sp?) was prevented from regulating derivatives.[/QUOTE]I hope I don't get blasted for being combative and new to the site, but I can't pass up these political discussions.

First thing: why are both the liberals and conservatives on this site completely cheapening the political discourse when it comes to the recession by reflexively invoking partisanship. As much as it frustrates me, democrats are entirely complicit in the great scheme of de-regulation. The republicans may tout it rhetorically, but all the major players in both democrat and republican administrations are retreds of previous administrations.

To the lightweight conservatives who call liberals like Obama "neo-marxist" or argue modern liberals want to valut the country towards socialism, you just know absoulely nothing about politics, american history, or world history more generally. His top economic advisers and his entire staff in the treasury and fed, at least the big players like summers, geithner, and bernake were all doped up on the wealth created during the last 30 years and were supporting the economic status quo the entire time. Wall st. Loved that geithner got named to head the treasury. The same people have defined the economic consenus for politicians for years and years and its basically no different under Obama.

To the conservatives who criticise healthcare reform: do you seriously think this even remotely resembles socilaism? Does that mean medicare-with an approval rating among republican seniors of 75 percent-is socialism? Mind you, the public option which was ditched would have essentially been medicare-and this bill only adds consumers to the bloody private market. Honestly these words like marxism and socialism are thrown around so loosely by shallow conservatives it just ruins any substantive discussion. Whatevers most easily digestiable and makes your world view flow more easily I guess. Socialism=the government owns the means of production and private capital does not exist. Even if there was a damn public option that still wouldn't be socialism becuase the govt. Wouldn't be in the business of deciding who goes to medical school and wouldn't be taking over G. E. 's production of medical equipment-jeffery no taxes immult is one of the president's top economic adviders.

As for the semi-reasoanble claim that the individual mandate is socialistic. Its still not socialism-but it definitely a huge huge step in government activism. But most importantly its constitutional. It falls under the commerce clause-the govt. Has the right to regulate interstate commerce. This is literally a multi-trillion dollar industry that operates between states. How the hell could this not fall under the govts. Right to regulate. The commerce clause permits minimum wage-do you republicans really believe that things like minimum wage are unconstitutional or socialistic? Unemployment tax too? I would really like to hear, and I'm not being sarcastic, a philosophical position against the individual mandate and why its unconstitutional.

Welcome JFK to AP and to the political fray.

No the individual mandate is not constitutional and it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination that it falls under the commerce clause, IMHO as well as a couple of Federal Judges. The Supreme Court will make the final ruling, unless you happen to sit on the court it is only your opinion that it does as well.

Please refer to the original document containing the faulted commerce clause, see anything even remotely about the government's ability to force people to purchase anything, anywhere? No you don’t, what you have is a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause to suit their purposes, in this case the private healthcare market. You mention Medicare, Medicaid and Social Socurity, now those are great success stories are they not.

You also addressed how they are popular entitlement programs, of course they are. I direct your attention to Greece, their social programs are popular as well, so much so the Greek people are rioting in the streets about cuts in those programs. Did you happen to notice Greece was bankrupted by these same popular programs?

By the way if you check the posts by most of the conservative members of the board, we mostly agree both parties are at fault for the mess we are in, but IMHO the Democrats deserve a greater portion of the blame for Fanny and Freddy perpetuating the housing bubble that got us here in the first place. Of course this does not excuse the Republicans under Bush for spending like drunken sailors.

By the way, I won’t tell you not to weigh in with the BIG BOYs like Esten, we love new folks joining in. Just don’t insult our intelligence or cast dispersions on those who don’t agree with you.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418093]Welcome JFK to AP and to the political fray.

No the individual mandate is not constitutional and it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination that it falls under the commerce clause, IMHO as well as a couple of Federal Judges. The Supreme Court will make the final ruling, unless you happen to sit on the court it is only your opinion that it does as well.

Please refer to the original document containing the faulted commerce clause, see anything even remotely about the government's ability to force people to purchase anything, anywhere? No you don't, what you have is a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause to suit their purposes, in this case the private healthcare market. You mention Medicare, Medicaid and Social Socurity, now those are great success stories are they not.

You also addressed how they are popular entitlement programs, of course they are. I direct your attention to Greece, their social programs are popular as well, so much so the Greek people are rioting in the streets about cuts in those programs. Did you happen to notice Greece was bankrupted by these same popular programs?[/quote]Fanny and Freddie were highly unfortunate, but Bush supported the same basic philosophy that drove them. That homeownership should be promoted at all costs. But why just blame fanny and freddie? No blame for banks creating absurdly risky products with other peoples money that they had a good idea would fail? No blame for the culture of wall st of wild short term speculation? Wall st really is what drove the economy off a cliff, and both parties are responsible for that-no more one than the other.

As for your understanding of the constitution-I guess your in the Scalia Thomas camp of radical "originalism". To say "where does it say this in the Constituion" is really a limited argument. Where does it say anything about a presidents right to buy territory like was done with the louisiana purchase. The idea of implied powers exists. Conservatives have this hyperlimited appraoch to the functionality and substance of the constitution. Where does it say anything about Congress being able to force businesses to pay a minimum amount to workers? Or where does it say anything about the federal govts right to makes laws regarding public education like no child left behind?

The basic problem with a "conservative" appraoch to the constituion in my opinion is that conservatives understand the law to be a restricting force whereas I see law as a means to liberate. I'm not some radical who wants to shred the essence of the document, but I just feel that conservatives want to smother it. This was a nation that was spiritually "conceived in liberty" and the maximization of liberty is the driving force behind the constituion. How we understand liberty surely evolves with time don't you agree? Therefore, shouldn't the substantive force proecting liberty (the constitution) evolve with the times too?

Doppelganger. Do you want me to jump into this? I'm just sayin. You know. Tag team.

JKFliberal12, I welcome your input. I appreciate you bringing substance to the debate, rather than regurgitated talking points.

I'm actually packing my bags for EZE right now so I won't delve too deep.

1. Medicare / Medicade / Social Security. 38 trillion dollars in debt. Last time I checked.

2. Greece is a preview of coming attractions. To a street near you. Without the good hummus or that grape leaf wrapped rice / olive thing.

3. Fanny and Freddie were "highly unfortunate". How about "Highly Fraudulent". In 2004 GWB called into question the management of Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank repeatedly defended these two GSE's."Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound. They are not in danger of going under. I do think their prospects going foreward are very solid." Barney Frank. 14 July 2008. Wall Street, and unregulated mortgage brokers bear a lot of the blame, but individual buyers bear a good bit as well. Just ask MBS holding pensioners in Denmark, to whom we sold our crap. Yeah, real estate prices only go up. That was the mantra.

4."Banks creating risky products". See "Repeal of Glass-Stegall" (Grahamm Leach Bliley). It was a great idea in 1933. WTF happened in 1999?

5. As for use of terms like "neo-Marxist"? I call a spade a spade. The progressive, evolutionary socialist, movement in this country is Marxist. Not so much revolutionary (yet) , but evolutionary. Circa 1910.

6. The Constitution is a list of negative liberties. Things which the govt. Cannot do to you. Our current CINC knows this, but doesn't like it. He, as well as many other Marxists, want the Constitution to be a list of things the govt should do "FOR" you. Probably not unlike the Soviet Constitution of 1936.

Small government is good. Individual liberty should be protected at all cost. If the rights of the idividual cannot be guaranteed by law, that is enforced, then all society will collapse.

Got to go pack.

BF.

[QUOTE=JFKliberal12; 418094][QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418093]Welcome JFK to AP and to the political fray.

No the individual mandate is not constitutional and it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination that it falls under the commerce clause, IMHO as well as a couple of Federal Judges. The Supreme Court will make the final ruling, unless you happen to sit on the court it is only your opinion that it does as well.

Please refer to the original document containing the faulted commerce clause, see anything even remotely about the government's ability to force people to purchase anything, anywhere? No you don't, what you have is a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause to suit their purposes, in this case the private healthcare market. You mention Medicare, Medicaid and Social Socurity, now those are great success stories are they not.

You also addressed how they are popular entitlement programs, of course they are. I direct your attention to Greece, their social programs are popular as well, so much so the Greek people are rioting in the streets about cuts in those programs. Did you happen to notice Greece was bankrupted by these same popular programs?[/quote]Fanny and Freddie were highly unfortunate, but Bush supported the same basic philosophy that drove them. That homeownership should be promoted at all costs. But why just blame fanny and freddie? No blame for banks creating absurdly risky products with other peoples money that they had a good idea would fail? No blame for the culture of wall st of wild short term speculation? Wall st really is what drove the economy off a cliff, and both parties are responsible for that-no more one than the other.

As for your understanding of the constitution-I guess your in the Scalia Thomas camp of radical "originalism". To say "where does it say this in the Constituion" is really a limited argument. Where does it say anything about a presidents right to buy territory like was done with the louisiana purchase. The idea of implied powers exists. Conservatives have this hyperlimited appraoch to the functionality and substance of the constitution. Where does it say anything about Congress being able to force businesses to pay a minimum amount to workers? Or where does it say anything about the federal govts right to makes laws regarding public education like no child left behind?

The basic problem with a "conservative" appraoch to the constituion in my opinion is that conservatives understand the law to be a restricting force whereas I see law as a means to liberate. I'm not some radical who wants to shred the essence of the document, but I just feel that conservatives want to smother it. This was a nation that was spiritually "conceived in liberty" and the maximization of liberty is the driving force behind the constituion. How we understand liberty surely evolves with time don't you agree? Therefore, shouldn't the substantive force proecting liberty (the constitution) evolve with the times too? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BlueFalcon;418088]Man, this is going to be fun! [/QUOTE]Yawn. I'm tired of you already.

The regulars here have been debating all the usual topics for years. My personal interest in the debate here comes and goes. I will post what I please, and won't recycle my arguments for every newbie that signs up.

[QUOTE]I just love how the libtards get parochial (that means "Uppity" Esten) when they cannot defend their position with facts. But then again Esten, I'm sure you don't let the facts clutter your keppe. [/QUOTE]See Blue, usually when a newbie joins a board, certainly a board like this, one would expect they would show a little humility. You on the other hand, in just a few short posts come blazing on the scene with perhaps the most arrogant attitude I have seen in all the years I have been following AP. You've already established yourself as someone I'd be unlikely to associate with in BA, and you're one step away from going on my ignore list.

[QUOTE]You posted, and I paraphrase here, that "de-regulatory policies of the GWB administration were directly responsible for the economic meltdown", yet you offered no example of such policies either in your first post or in your second, MSNBC / HuffPo inspired diatribe.[/QUOTE]Why paraphrase? I cited the "conservative philosophies that reigned under Bush". It is true that both Dems and Repubs were responsible for Gramm-Leach-Bliley. There was also CFMA in 2000. I do not hold Dems faultless. However deregulation / less government is far more a conservative philosophy than a liberal philosophy. That's my point. And you apparently agree that Gramm-Leach-Bliley was an important cause. Many people were fooled by the promise of "financial innovation" and "self-regulation", now we need to learn from past mistakes.

Citing the CRA is just another empty conservative talking point. Go pull up a Case Shiller from the eighties, you'll see the housing bubble began around the time of GLB/CFMA and almost perfectly overlaps the 6 years of Republican control of WH and Congress. Your attempt to pin blame on Carter is laughable. The CRA was around for a long time. But it was only over 2001-2007 that the giant financially-leveraged bubble occured. You trying to pin that on Carter? LMAO. Remember who said "Wall Street got drunk" ?

[QUOTE]The more the libs talk, or in this case post, the more they show their ass. Keep it comming bro. [/QUOTE]Yep. Possibly the most arrogant newbie to ever appear on AP. Along with your poor arguments, it's hard to find a reason to take you seriously. I might indulge you some more. Or maybe not.

I'll look forward to reading your chica reviews.

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre; 417602]Who Cares!

As long as he has some hot CHICAS like FLOR to recommend on this site he's got my vote!

If I could vote that is!

And if I gave a shit about politics!

I seem to remember a little guy in Europe with a funny little mustache that had a vision of a UNIFIED EUROPE and a world free of COMMUNISIM!

Guess what?

Europe is ALMOST unified and the world is ALMOST free of communism!

The European Union is almost complete but that country is paying everyone's debt!

Guess which country will be the Head of State?

Best cars in the world too!

Volkswagon will be the number one car company in the world within 5 years too!

Bought Audi and Porche while the rest are falling down the drain!

But oh yeah, we were talking about the USA!

Like I said, who cares?

I live in BA and will always keep BA as my headquarters and base of operations!

TL.

P. S. This is why I NEVER post about Politics!

Not my specialty and and not what I give a SHIT ABOUT!

AND not what this site is about! [/QUOTE]Some day we will have a serious disagreement over this matter!

This fucking forum is about getting LAID you knumbskulls!

Nobody in BA gives a shit about who your President is or is going to be in Sex Prison!

Unite and Revolt!

Fuck me if I'm wrong!

But kiss me while you are doing it!

Let the EU take over the world!

TL.

PS- Obviously I know more about pussy than cents! Politics and horse shit!

Clinton mandated that banks loan to people who really couldn't afford. It was called the Community Act or something similar. Once the banks / mortgage companies were unleashed from normal lending standards, everything escalated to a level of massive fraud that the FBI warned about, but weren't given the manpower to do anything about.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;418105]Clinton mandated that banks loan to people who really couldn't afford. It was called the Community Act or something similar. Once the banks / mortgage companies were unleashed from normal lending standards, everything escalated to a level of massive fraud that the FBI warned about, but weren't given the manpower to do anything about.[/QUOTE]Perhaps, there have been government mandates, But on an american lifestylelevel, I know credit started loosening up in the 2nd half of the 1990s. And so everyone I know seem to be remorgaging their homes and using their equity line. It was astonishing to find out that households with good incomes had pretty big credit card debts. People with no write-offs were leasing cars or trading for new cars every 2 or 3 years. Even now, I am getting all kinds of credit card offers or 0% balance transfers. Let us just say, people are encourage to spent and spend big on a everyday basis, forget about the easy housing loans.

With all this, we have also seen an increase in banking and credit card fees. A double whammy, suck you in first and then turn on the heat. Just like the 1 way walk-in escalators into Ceasars Palace. A few times, I had to call them and use my charm and goodwill to wipe out the high late payment fees. So why is everyone calling out foul on some of the new banking regulations? Are we not only greedy, but pussy stupid, too?

JFK, Those here who believe in liberal economics, the people who you're calling "conservatives", don't really believe Obama is a Marxist or a Socialist. We do believe he and most Congressional Democrats and some Congressional Republicans are intent on growing the size of government to ridiculous and unsustainable levels. The economy will become less efficient, and most Americans, rich and poor, will suffer as a result.

In 2009, total government spending as a % of GDP was 42%. It was 40% in 2010. And you ain't seen nothing yet. The General Accounting Office projects Medicare and Medicaid spending will increase from around 5% of GDP to 18% over the next 70 years. Look for government spending to account for over 50% of the economy if we continue on our current course.

At such time as government comes to account for the majority of the economy, maybe it would be comforting if we DID have Socialism. Because that 50%+ of GDP that the government will control isn't going to be used to pay the people and companies that produce things like cars, homes, energy, and food. It's not going to be used to pay those who actually produce things. Instead the majority of it is going to be spent on medical expenses for the elderly, defense, subsidies, etc.

History has shown that capitalism trumps socialism and Marxism. But arguably what USA politicians seem hell bent on pursuing, taking very large amounts of money away from the productive part of the economy and channeling it toward transfer payments and their pet projects, could be just as damaging or more damaging than socialism.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418112]JFK, Those here who believe in liberal economics, the people who you're calling "conservatives", don't really believe Obama is a Marxist or a Socialist. [/quote]I do. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it. What would one call a hugely polarizing, dictatorial leader transforming (his own word) America, against the will of the people (see Obamacare) to transfer not only wealth from the productive portion of society to the nonproductive but also seizing your personal freedoms and rights for the benefit of larger government and more government control over individual choices? I sure as shit don't find that consistent with Jeffersonian democracy. Further, this cult of personality can't deny the deleterious effects of his policies upon the American economy and the American people yet, he will not reconsider the ideological path to which he has sworn allegiance.

[quote=]In 2009, total government spending as a % of GDP was 42%. It was 40% in 2010. And you ain't seen nothing yet. The General Accounting Office projects Medicare and Medicaid spending will increase from around 5% of GDP to 18% over the next 70 years. Look for government spending to account for over 50% of the economy if we continue on our current course.[/quote]
Agreed, this is already happening. I'd like to have one of the resident leftists articulate how the current level of government spending can be sustained, let alone the future rate of spending growth, to which we are already committed. Please don't just say raise taxes, include empirical data to support your argument that huge tax increases won't further crater the economy.

Don't forget that GDP measures the revenue of all goods and services and is not a net number expressing profits from economic activity. Therefore, actual, pre-tax, take-home pay is only a small fraction of GDP. Therefore, tax revenues, as we all know are significantly smaller than the amount of spending.

[quote=]At such time as government comes to account for the majority of the economy, maybe it would be comforting if we DID have Socialism. Because that 50%+ of GDP that the government will control isn't going to be used to pay the people and companies that produce things like cars, homes, energy, and food. It's not going to be used to pay those who actually produce things. Instead the majority of it is going to be spent on medical expenses for the elderly, defense, subsidies, etc.[/quote]It is not a leap to see the continuation of this administrations policies, unabated in light of the reality of their effects, as deliberate facilitation of the destruction of America's economy and the continuation of the Great Recession. Why would they do that? Perhaps it is aimed at pushing the country to point where it must consider reallocating huge amounts of our defense dollars to paying for social programs (a panacea of the left).

[quote=]History has shown that capitalism trumps socialism and Marxism. But arguably what USA politicians seem hell bent on pursuing, taking very large amounts of money away from the productive part of the economy and channeling it toward transfer payments and their pet projects, could be just as damaging or more damaging than socialism.[/QUOTE]Whatever name you put on it, clear plurality of the American people reject it and will reject it next year in the presidential election. As happens every so often, American's loose sight of history and facts when heading to the polls and are susceptible to believing fairy tales built of pure BS. This is what happened in 2008 and barring a republican-like, third-party candidate (which would be horrible for the country) BHO and his job-killing agenda will be tossed out of office.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 418072]Stan,

The LA Times was part of my daily diet until I started roaming the world a few years back. Since the Chandler family sold the paper, and with the downturn in print news, the Times has since suffered many cutbacks. It is now a shadow of what once was. But in it's prime, it had an excellent front page, accurate reporting and diverse articles that reflected it's multi-cultural readership. Every year, it has ganered a fair share of the reporting awards. Whilst the editorials were liberal, I never felt I was being set-up as when I was reading the NY Times. In addition, the sports, entertainment and living (food) sections were outstanding. Now, I scan it online for US and local news.

Subscription was high at one time because it was very reasonable, even if all they read was the sports page. At the work place, you would find the several copies of the paper laying around but no sports page. Were you one of those guys? It is going to be quite a different world when the papers go out of the print business. But at least, your fingers will be clean when you put the lox & bagel sandwich in your mouth! [/QUOTE]I couldn't agree more, both about the LA Times and the NY Times. An editorial by Tim Rutten this past weekend brought back all the memories of why I won't waste another cent on the LA Times.

I wasn't reading the LA paper when any of the Chandlers were involved day-to-day, but I have watched a few documentaries on the Chandlers. By all accounts, the paper was much better off when it was family run than since it got swallowed up by larger conglomerates. Today, I get the majority of my news online, but one of the brightest spots of my day is still sitting down with the Wall Street Journal when I get some time. I will concede that it's op / ed and editorial sections are conservative. But, if you set that aside, the rest of the paper is about the best there is in the USA, in my opinion. I am also a fan of the San Jose Mercury News, but even it has declined considerably in the last 10 years.

The print news media is fast fading, but I personally believe that some consolidation was in order. I also don't believe it's a coincidence that nearly all major print newspapers are liberal and left leaning to some degree, and these are the papers that are losing subscribers. Craigslist has had a greater impact. But, when you take your readers for granted and try to spoon feed them what you want them to believe, rather than the facts, you gradually lose readers. This also explains partially the rise of Fox News. Granted, it's a different medium. But, a paper with a liberal bent will offend half its readers on a consistent basis. Is it any wonder that some of the readers eventually gravitate to an outlet that offers more pleasing fare?

[QUOTE=BlueFalcon; 418088]Man, this is going to be fun!

I just love how the libtards get parochial (that means "Uppity" Esten) when they cannot defend their position with facts. But then again Esten, I'm sure you don't let the facts clutter your keppe."Big Boys". Really? Is that all you can come up with?

Let me help you stay on point here. You posted, and I paraphrase here, that "de-regulatory policies of the GWB administration were directly responsible for the economic meltdown", yet you offered no example of such policies either in your first post or in your second, MSNBC / HuffPo inspired diatribe.

I, on the other hand, gave two examples of government meddling, one regulatory (Community Reinvestment Act) , and one de-regulatory (Grahmm-Leach-Bliley) , both signed into law by liberal Democrat Presidents, which were directly responsible (the sown seeds) for the debacle that started mid October 2007.

The more the libs talk, or in this case post, the more they show their ass. Keep it comming bro. This is a hoot!

BF. [/QUOTE]You see that? Esten did reply. And, he treated you just like he treats everyone else.

By that, I mean that he pushed the "Submit Report" button and superficially addressed your post but still managed not to actually respond to anything. That's his specialty. But remember, Esten claims to do his own research on everything and have an informed opinion. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

I suspect you already know this, but here goes: Don't hold your breath waiting for a substantive response from him that actually makes any sense. That will never be forthcoming.

Welcome to the club! If Esten's already taken offense at your posts, you're okay in my book.