florida drug test for welfare recipiants

[f.sciarrillo]

I don't mind welfare for the people who truly need it. It is the career welfare recipients who piss me off.

[RobTheDrummer]

I say get rid of testing AND welfare.

Problem solved.

USA just a little closer to not going over the edge.

Only some people temporarily hungry instead of everybody permanently hungry.

No, welfare is a necessary "evil" man. A free society must be a humane society. Some people really need the help, and if you refuse them you turn them into animals. You'll drive them to crime. That only makes situation worse.

What we need is welfare reform. Get the fraud out, get the true deadbeats out, and reserve it for those that truly need the help.

Ps there will always be fraud and waste in any system (govt as well as private sector). but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We need Social Security. We need Medicare. We need Employment insurance. We need Welfare.

Even ROME saw the necessity of a welfare sys..

"He was generous to Rome’s population, giving out cash and increasing the number of poor citizens who could receive free grain. Trajan also began a massive program of public works, building bridges, harbors and aqueducts. Finally, he reduced taxes and started a new welfare program for poor children. This work brought him acclaim from many, including the statesman and author, Pliny the Younger. "
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empir ... rajan.html

maybe that was the beginning of Rome's downfall? lol

[lonewolf]

I say get rid of testing AND welfare.

Problem solved.

USA just a little closer to not going over the edge.

Only some people temporarily hungry instead of everybody permanently hungry.

No, welfare is a necessary "evil" man. A free society must be a humane society. Some people really need the help, and if you refuse them you turn them into animals. You'll drive them to crime. That only makes situation worse.

What we need is welfare reform. Get the fraud out, get the true deadbeats out, and reserve it for those that truly need the help.

Ps there will always be fraud and waste in any system (govt as well as private sector). but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We need Social Security. We need Medicare. We need Employment insurance. We need Welfare.

Even ROME saw the necessity of a welfare sys..

"He was generous to Rome’s population, giving out cash and increasing the number of poor citizens who could receive free grain. Trajan also began a massive program of public works, building bridges, harbors and aqueducts. Finally, he reduced taxes and started a new welfare program for poor children. This work brought him acclaim from many, including the statesman and author, Pliny the Younger. "
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empir ... rajan.html

Read the Federalist Papers, then understand the Constitution. Its not the fed's job...its the states'. I can't expect anybody born after WWII to accept that because we have all been indoctrinated that the federal government is the be all end all. The further to the left you lean, the less likely you are to accept this fact.

About 3/4 of the stuff started since 1933 was originally meant for the states. Somebody decided along the way that welfare meant a right to color TV, potato chips & soda in perpetuity.

And yes, "bread & circuses", non-production and overtaxation was the demise of the Roman Empire. They actually ended up with hyperinflation.

Besides, the Humane Society is charging $65 for cats now.

[RobTheDrummer]

What happens if you pay out more than you take in?

[Merge]

You can't ask questions like that, Rob. If a bleeding heart is forced to answer such a question, they'll have no justification for their desire to make the USA a nanny state.

[Hawk]

I say get rid of testing AND welfare.

Problem solved.

USA just a little closer to not going over the edge.

Only some people temporarily hungry instead of everybody permanently hungry.

No, welfare is a necessary "evil" man. A free society must be a humane society. Some people really need the help, and if you refuse them you turn them into animals. You'll drive them to crime. That only makes situation worse.

What we need is welfare reform. Get the fraud out, get the true deadbeats out, and reserve it for those that truly need the help.

Ps there will always be fraud and waste in any system (govt as well as private sector). but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We need Social Security. We need Medicare. We need Employment insurance. We need Welfare.

Even ROME saw the necessity of a welfare sys..

"He was generous to Rome’s population, giving out cash and increasing the number of poor citizens who could receive free grain. Trajan also began a massive program of public works, building bridges, harbors and aqueducts. Finally, he reduced taxes and started a new welfare program for poor children. This work brought him acclaim from many, including the statesman and author, Pliny the Younger. "
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empir ... rajan.html

Read the Federalist Papers, then understand the Constitution. Its not the fed's job...its the states'. I can't expect anybody born after WWII to accept that because we have all been indoctrinated that the federal government is the be all end all. The further to the left you lean, the less likely you are to accept this fact.

About 3/4 of the stuff started since 1933 was originally meant for the states. Somebody decided along the way that welfare meant a right to color TV, potato chips & soda in perpetuity.

And yes, "bread & circuses", non-production and overtaxation was the demise of the Roman Empire. They actually ended up with hyperinflation.

Besides, the Humane Society is charging $65 for cats now.

I have read The Federalist Papers. Hamilton understood the need for a strong central government. As I remember Hamilton was responsible for Article 1 section 8. Just because you choose to interpret it your way doesn't make you right.

The founding fathers NEVER anticipated a society like we have today. Jefferson thought we would be a country of mostly farmers. They could never have envisioned the needs of today's health care and the costs of today's health care.

While you would like each state to take care of it's own, a central government IMO is needed to regulate the system if for no other reason than uniformity. With modern communications, in a sense, the US is smaller than it was in 1776.

Just as undercoverjoe like to say he has matured relative to his politics, perhaps the same would occur if the founding fathers could be interviewed today. Jefferson himself seemed to change after he was president, buying Louisiana, which was unconstitutional. At a cost of about $15 Million, ($3 million paid up front in gold) I believe Jefferson increased the US debt. He likely relied on TAXES to pay off the debt.

The federal government's job IS to protect us and some people need welfare.

[Hawk]

Besides, the Humane Society is charging $65 for cats now.

I'm not quite sure why you threw this in ? The Humane society is not connected to any government in any way. Not city, county or state.

They rely on donations. At one time if you got a pet from them you had to have it spayed or neutered at your own cost to your own veterinarian. Today they pay a veterinarian to come to the Humane society to do the procedure there, for a lower cost than a private veterinarian. (You do have an option to pay less for the pet if you go to your own vet. At least it was that way not too long ago.)

The costs of heating the building and upgrades and repairs and paying staff is expensive, although they don't pay much to the staff.

So if you pay $65 for a stray cat, think of all of the other pets you saved. I got my dog from the local Humane Society. I gladly paid the fee.

[lonewolf]

No, welfare is a necessary "evil" man. A free society must be a humane society. Some people really need the help, and if you refuse them you turn them into animals. You'll drive them to crime. That only makes situation worse.

What we need is welfare reform. Get the fraud out, get the true deadbeats out, and reserve it for those that truly need the help.

Ps there will always be fraud and waste in any system (govt as well as private sector). but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We need Social Security. We need Medicare. We need Employment insurance. We need Welfare.

Even ROME saw the necessity of a welfare sys..

"He was generous to Rome’s population, giving out cash and increasing the number of poor citizens who could receive free grain. Trajan also began a massive program of public works, building bridges, harbors and aqueducts. Finally, he reduced taxes and started a new welfare program for poor children. This work brought him acclaim from many, including the statesman and author, Pliny the Younger. "
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empir ... rajan.html

Read the Federalist Papers, then understand the Constitution. Its not the fed's job...its the states'. I can't expect anybody born after WWII to accept that because we have all been indoctrinated that the federal government is the be all end all. The further to the left you lean, the less likely you are to accept this fact.

About 3/4 of the stuff started since 1933 was originally meant for the states. Somebody decided along the way that welfare meant a right to color TV, potato chips & soda in perpetuity.

And yes, "bread & circuses", non-production and overtaxation was the demise of the Roman Empire. They actually ended up with hyperinflation.

Besides, the Humane Society is charging $65 for cats now.

I have read The Federalist Papers. Hamilton understood the need for a strong central government. As I remember Hamilton was responsible for Article 1 section 8. Just because you choose to interpret it your way doesn't make you right.

The founding fathers NEVER anticipated a society like we have today. Jefferson thought we would be a country of mostly farmers. They could never have envisioned the needs of today's health care and the costs of today's health care.

While you would like each state to take care of it's own, a central government IMO is needed to regulate the system if for no other reason than uniformity. With modern communications, in a sense, the US is smaller than it was in 1776.

Just as undercoverjoe like to say he has matured relative to his politics, perhaps the same would occur if the founding fathers could be interviewed today. Jefferson himself seemed to change after he was president, buying Louisiana, which was unconstitutional.

The federal government's job IS to protect us and some people need welfare.

Yes they did anticipate the needs of the people...that's why they left those considerations in the hands of the states. The federal government is designed to protect the borders, establish currency and act as referee between the states (amongst a few other enumerated things). Everything else is left to the States or the people. If you try to use the federal government for anything other than what they enumerated, its like using a hammer to drive a screw.

Of course, it took several trillion dollars to make that self-evident to the 85% of Americans who aren't liberal progressives.

You didn't read the Fed Papers very well if you didn't grasp this concept. Or, perhaps, you have a healthy case of confirmation bias?

The so called "general welfare" clause is nothing more than a descriptive phrase in the paragraph that simply gives Congress the power of taxation. Grammatically, the phrase does not stand alone, but when you remove the phrase, there is no real change in the statement. It begins with the grant of taxation (then the general descriptive phrase) and then it ends with another sentence that standardizes that taxation. "General welfare" could just as well have been left out or replaced with the word "stuff". Had they known that the "general welfare" clause would be made the law of the land by use of extortion, they would have stricken it from the original Constitution without argument or hesitation.

In the Federalist Papers, there is a paper where they flat-out tell you that the "general welfare" clause is only descriptive. Perhaps you missed that one. Or perhaps more confirmation bias?

The thing that really kills me about the liberal progressive left is how you guys bring up the founding fathers and say how much different they would be if they only saw the world as it is today. Horse hockey. It is more likely that they would shake their head at DC and say that its exactly what they tried to avoid when they designed the Constitution.

When you read "stronger central government", they were writing strictly in the context of stronger than the Articles of Confederation. Under the articles, they couldn't even raise a national army. The "stronger central government" that Hamilton argued for was in the context of creating a national military and did not go much further than that. More confirmation bias? Or perhaps an out-of-context sound bite?

The Federalist papers do not leave room for interpretation, they are very precise and to the point when you don't throw out the context. Leave it to a liberal progressive to sound-bite-out-of-context something that was written 220+ years ago.

[lonewolf]

Besides, the Humane Society is charging $65 for cats now.

I'm not quite sure why you threw this in ? The Humane society is not connected to any government in any way. Not city, county or state.

They rely on donations. At one time if you got a pet from them you had to have it spayed or neutered at your own cost to your own veterinarian. Today they pay a veterinarian to come to the Humane society to do the procedure there, for a lower cost than a private veterinarian. (You do have an option to pay less for the pet if you go to your own vet. At least it was that way not too long ago.)

The costs of heating the building and upgrades and repairs and paying staff is expensive, although they don't pay much to the staff.

So if you pay $65 for a stray cat, think of all of the other pets you saved. I got my dog from the local Humane Society. I gladly paid the fee.

Read his post...he said we should be a humane society.

That's a joke son.

I know, humor is a difficult concept for liberal progressives. I'll give you a hint: John Stewart is NOT a news anchor, he is a comedian.

EDIT: THIS DISCUSSION DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS THREAD...There are others

[Banned]

James Madison, often credited as Father of the Constitution, has this to say about unlimited power of congress:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

[Hawk]

Yes they did anticipate the needs of the people...that's why they left those considerations in the hands of the states. The federal government is designed to protect the borders, establish currency and act as referee between the states (amongst a few other enumerated things). Everything else is left to the States or the people. If you try to use the federal government for anything other than what they enumerated, its like using a hammer to drive a screw.

Of course, it took several trillion dollars to make that self-evident to the 85% of Americans who aren't liberal progressives.

You didn't read the Fed Papers very well if you didn't grasp this concept. Or, perhaps, you have a healthy case of confirmation bias?

The so called "general welfare" clause is nothing more than a descriptive phrase in the paragraph that simply gives Congress the power of taxation. Grammatically, the phrase does not stand alone, but when you remove the phrase, there is no real change in the statement. It begins with the grant of taxation (then the general descriptive phrase) and then it ends with another sentence that standardizes that taxation. "General welfare" could just as well have been left out or replaced with the word "stuff". Had they known that the "general welfare" clause would be made the law of the land by use of extortion, they would have stricken it from the original Constitution without argument or hesitation.

In the Federalist Papers, there is a paper where they flat-out tell you that the "general welfare" clause is only descriptive. Perhaps you missed that one. Or perhaps more confirmation bias?

The thing that really kills me about the liberal progressive left is how you guys bring up the founding fathers and say how much different they would be if they only saw the world as it is today. Horse hockey. It is more likely that they would shake their head at DC and say that its exactly what they tried to avoid when they designed the Constitution.

When you read "stronger central government", they were writing strictly in the context of stronger than the Articles of Confederation. Under the articles, they couldn't even raise a national army. The "stronger central government" that Hamilton argued for was in the context of creating a national military and did not go much further than that. More confirmation bias? Or perhaps an out-of-context sound bite?

The Federalist papers do not leave room for interpretation, they are very precise and to the point when you don't throw out the context. Leave it to a liberal progressive to sound-bite-out-of-context something that was written 220+ years ago.

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

I hardly think "general welfare" means "stuff". As carefully as the words were chosen, ONLY YOU would interpret it as though it "could just as well have been left out". .

Wishful thinking and a strong bias on your part will not change the constitution. It seems you are the one who reads and interprets with a bias.

You are an incredibly smart person. In all your flare and with all your writting skill, you did no better than provide a Limbaughish spin.

[Banned]

Bill, I would swear that you are a writer for MSNBC.

Hey, the Obamination himself said that if he could not get the economy fixed in 3 years, he would be a one term president. Do you agree?

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-2009- ... roposition

[lonewolf]

moved to appropriate thread

http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=221582#

[Hawk]

There is no doubt that Madison and Hamilton disagreed in the subject of "general welfare".

The quote Joe gave is from the debates when writing the constitution took place in Philadelphia. It is from the notes of the justice who was there and published years later in a newspaper. I'm not saying Joe is misquoting him, But there is a possibility the note writer had his own agenda. Not everyone agreed with Madison on the subject.

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757[1] – July 12, 1804) was a Founding Father, soldier, economist, political philosopher, one of America's first constitutional lawyers and the first United States Secretary of the Treasury. He has been described as one who "more than any other designed the Government of the United States".




"Implied powers, in the United States, are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated, are seemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law."

ISN'T THAT INTERESTING Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said, "... it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies." Now where did you hear that argument before ?

And Hamilton, as a driving force of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers says. "... the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution." WOW ! A founding Father no less says that !

Hamilton also proposed ideas in tariffs that where opposed by Madison, yet later supported by Madison. Huh, he changed his mind .

EDIT:

lonewolf:"When you read "stronger central government", they were writing strictly in the context of stronger than the Articles of Confederation. Under the articles, they couldn't even raise a national army. The "stronger central government" that Hamilton argued for was in the context of creating a national military and did not go much further than that. More confirmation bias? Or perhaps an out-of-context sound bite? "

Seems you are WRONG ! What I don't get is that you are so smart, yet you seem to get things wrong so often. Are you just wrong or are you attempting to use your intelligence to mislead us ?

[Hawk]

Bill, I would swear that you are a writer for MSNBC.

Hey, the Obamination himself said that if he could not get the economy fixed in 3 years, he would be a one term president. Do you agree?

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-2009- ... roposition

I didn't check out the link. Do people have the right to change their minds? Remember how strongly you supported the Patriot Act ? You changed your mind ( you now agree with me). Now should I only use quotes of what you said on the subject or should I accept what you say now ?

[Hawk]

What happens if you pay out more than you take in?

Go back to President Ronald Reagan era taxes.

[Hawk]

You can't ask questions like that, Rob. If a bleeding heart is forced to answer such a question, they'll have no justification for their desire to make the USA a nanny state.

I'm not afraid of any questions. Joe is the one who picks and chooses and fails to answer my questions.

[f.sciarrillo]

Hey Olbermann fans. Keith is debuting on Current tonight. Let me give you a run down of what he will say - The first minute he will say: "Obama is my master. I am in man love with him, and I worship the ground he walks on". The last 59 minutes will be about how bad fox news is. He has a lot of making up to do you know. I think somewhere along there, he will come out and admit that he is a socialist as well.

[Hawk]

Hey Olbermann fans. Keith is debuting on Current tonight. Let me give you a run down of what he will say - The first minute he will say: "Obama is my master. I am in man love with him, and I worship the ground he walks on". The last 59 minutes will be about how bad fox news is. He has a lot of making up to do you know. I think somewhere along there, he will come out and admit that he is a socialist as well.

There you go writing shit again. No substance, no research, just spewing some insults. When will you learn that you add NOTHING but HATE with these obnoxious rants ?

Damn man, if you're going to say something make it more than a post that even insults your own intelligence.

[lonewolf]

Hey Olbermann fans. Keith is debuting on Current tonight. Let me give you a run down of what he will say - The first minute he will say: "Obama is my master. I am in man love with him, and I worship the ground he walks on". The last 59 minutes will be about how bad fox news is. He has a lot of making up to do you know. I think somewhere along there, he will come out and admit that he is a socialist as well.

There you go writing shit again. No substance, no research, just spewing some insults. When will you learn that you add NOTHING but HATE with these obnoxious rants ?

Damn man, if you're going to say something make it more than a post that even insults your own intelligence.

He's just making a prediction. I wouldn't doubt that he's not too far off the mark. Too bad Current TV doesn't show up on the radar screen. I always liked to watch about 5 minutes of Olbermann...just until the point where he would start looking like he was smelling a fart and you could see the veins in his temple popping out.......

[f.sciarrillo]

Hey Olbermann fans. Keith is debuting on Current tonight. Let me give you a run down of what he will say - The first minute he will say: "Obama is my master. I am in man love with him, and I worship the ground he walks on". The last 59 minutes will be about how bad fox news is. He has a lot of making up to do you know. I think somewhere along there, he will come out and admit that he is a socialist as well.

There you go writing shit again. No substance, no research, just spewing some insults. When will you learn that you add NOTHING but HATE with these obnoxious rants ?

Damn man, if you're going to say something make it more than a post that even insults your own intelligence.

You obviously didn't get the humor. I forgot that insulting Olbermann, and Obama sets you off. *Duh!*

[Hawk]

Hey Olbermann fans. Keith is debuting on Current tonight. Let me give you a run down of what he will say - The first minute he will say: "Obama is my master. I am in man love with him, and I worship the ground he walks on". The last 59 minutes will be about how bad fox news is. He has a lot of making up to do you know. I think somewhere along there, he will come out and admit that he is a socialist as well.

There you go writing shit again. No substance, no research, just spewing some insults. When will you learn that you add NOTHING but HATE with these obnoxious rants ?

Damn man, if you're going to say something make it more than a post that even insults your own intelligence.

You obviously didn't get the humor. I forgot that insulting Olbermann, and Obama sets you off. *Duh!*

It's you adding NOTHING...

Try making points of stupid things he says. That would be subject to discussion.

Like this:

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a few weeks ago. (I listen to him nearly every day, but this one just sticks out in my mind). He was talking to a caller. The caller made a comment about how much money BP donated to Obama's presidential campaign.

Rush went off on one of his usual tangents while I laughed aloud as he tried to remove his foot from hi mouth (a common experience on his show). He used the BP donation to explain how Obama could not be trusted and how UNloyal he was. Obama made BP pay SO MUCH MONEY for the BP oil spill after BP gave him all that money for his candidacy ! Obama turned on BP after they helped him with all that money.

Do any of you see an obvious flaw in this line of reasoning ? Like Obama can't be bought ? Does Rush think Presidents should be loyal to the Big Money People ? I think he does.

Trying to get his foot out of his mouth, he managed to blame Obama for high gas prices because of what he did to BP. Repeating that he just proved that Obama has no morals because he can't be trusted (according to Limbaugh morals ).

[Banned]

Hey Olbermann fans. Keith is debuting on Current tonight. Let me give you a run down of what he will say - The first minute he will say: "Obama is my master. I am in man love with him, and I worship the ground he walks on". The last 59 minutes will be about how bad fox news is. He has a lot of making up to do you know. I think somewhere along there, he will come out and admit that he is a socialist as well.

There you go writing shit again. No substance, no research, just spewing some insults. When will you learn that you add NOTHING but HATE with these obnoxious rants ?

Damn man, if you're going to say something make it more than a post that even insults your own intelligence.

Bill, that post was very spot on about Olbermann, and just about everyone else that is still on MSNBC. Why is it when someone posts something about someone you like, they automatically become haters, or racists?.

[Banned]

Bill, I would swear that you are a writer for MSNBC.

Hey, the Obamination himself said that if he could not get the economy fixed in 3 years, he would be a one term president. Do you agree?

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-2009- ... roposition

I didn't check out the link. Do people have the right to change their minds? Remember how strongly you supported the Patriot Act ? You changed your mind ( you now agree with me). Now should I only use quotes of what you said on the subject or should I accept what you say now ?

Well, do you agree with the Obamination himself? He said he should be a 1 term president if he does not fix the economy in 3 years.

Who are you talking about changing minds, you or Obamination? Of course he lies, he lied then and he lies now. So there is no way he will ever hold himself to what he actually said. Do you?

[f.sciarrillo]

It's you adding NOTHING...

Try making points of stupid things he says. That would be subject to discussion.

Like this:

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a few weeks ago. (I listen to him nearly every day, but this one just sticks out in my mind). He was talking to a caller. The caller made a comment about how much money BP donated to Obama's presidential campaign.

Rush went off on one of his usual tangents while I laughed aloud as he tried to remove his foot from hi mouth (a common experience on his show). He used the BP donation to explain how Obama could not be trusted and how UNloyal he was. Obama made BP pay SO MUCH MONEY for the BP oil spill after BP gave him all that money for his candidacy ! Obama turned on BP after they helped him with all that money.

Do any of you see an obvious flaw in this line of reasoning ? Like Obama can't be bought ? Does Rush think Presidents should be loyal to the Big Money People ? I think he does.

Trying to get his foot out of his mouth, he managed to blame Obama for high gas prices because of what he did to BP. Repeating that he just proved that Obama has no morals because he can't be trusted (according to Limbaugh morals ).

Actually, Bill, that makes me laugh. BP did give their largest campaign contribution in company history to Obama. They in turn got a safety award from him. You remember; it is was on the same rig that blew up, which in turn caused the worst disaster, ever, in the gulf. If you think about it, BP was trying to buy him. Of course we all know what their record is, and how they operate. I don't think Obama could be bought. He does whatever is good for him at the time he does it. He will love you and be on your side one minute, and then the next he will be putting you under the bus. Then name a politician who doesn't do that.

[edit] On the subject of Keith Olbermann, you might be happy to know that I spoke with him last night and told him good luck on his new show. He told me thank you. [/edit]