Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

‘Sequester’ Scare Numbers Suspect

February 28, 2013

It has been said by those who understand how numbers can be used as propaganda that there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-28-13 4:30 AM

listen to or read Bob Woodards actual Reporting on Obama and the sequester...Yes Virginia, there is still one real news reporter still alive in the USA.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 9:53 AM

Not just Woodward threatened, read below:

"WASHINGTON -- Bob Woodward isn't the only person who's received threats for airing the Obama administration's dirty laundry. It seems anyone is a potential target of the White House these days - even former senior members of the Clinton administration.

A day after Woodward's claim that a senior White House official had told him he would "regret" writing a column criticizing President Obama's stance on the sequester, Lanny Davis, a longtime close advisor to President Bill Clinton, told WMAL's Mornings on the Mall Thursday he had received similar threats for newspaper columns he had written about Obama in the Washington Times.

Davis told WMAL that his editor, John Solomon, "received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn't like some of my columns, even though I'm a supporter of Obama. I couldn't imagine why this call was made." Davis says the Obama aide told Solomon, "that if he contin

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 11:51 AM

Thank you, Choking Smoker. Isn't ironic that ole' Mike is accusing the President of doing just what he himself does in virtually every political op. ed. he writes. Maybe the President has been reading Mr. Myer's columns.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 12:39 PM

Pretty bad when our gov. has to lie to the people just to raise taxes in order to support those who don't want to support themselves.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 8:21 PM

Let's see...

The figure I keep hearing is $85 billion. Sounds like a lot, until you consider all the stuff this "cut" will supposedly do away with. Air traffic, school lunches, police, teachers, firefighters, medicare, border security, military, etc, etc...

Boy, if we are getting all that for $85 billion, what a bargain!!!

Of course that raises the question of what are they squandering the OTHER $3.415 TRILLION on????

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 8:23 PM

Why did I put quotes on "cut"? Nowhere else but Washington would reducing the INCREASE in spending by $85 billion be called a CUT!!!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 7:24 AM

And NoImpact is here with her rapier intellect to illucidate us with brilliant insights into the insiduous workings of NR editorial department . . . . . . .

........ {crickets} . . . . . .

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 7 of 7 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: