I read XKCD every day (well, every other day), I frequent reddit, I've bought shoes from Zappos, and of course Wikipedia is my second brain.
By contrast, I would rather gouge out my own eyes than raise virtual pigs on facebook (farmville) and I didn't even know what Zillow was.
According to that chart, I should be a shoe-in for Obama, and yet he's got about as much chance of getting my vote as he does of receiving the endorsement of the local chapter of the KKK.
the chart goes by facebok audience, so while you participate in those sites if you have not "liked" them on FB it does not count towards this statistic if im reading it right. (small print under title)
Briebart is not mainstream news on TV, and those sort of posts, like the content suggest are blogger style.
So it's super "holy ---- lulz, the best for last," because a blogger/poster/contributor on briebart.com might have found a connection to the democratic party to the negate the story that ABC was saying he was a tea party member?
At least the updated readers within 30 minutes of posting that the information the got was incorrect, and were at least trying to fact check before going on national TV with a fictious story, Dan Rathers.
We should be proud of ABC for giving out the wrong address of the James Holmes and having to lose another law suit...
I will take the time to read the second link later, but I can tell you he lost me halfway through his analysis when he posted the following"
Originally Posted by Dan Mitchell
But I donít want my Republican friends to get too angry with me, so letís expand our analysis. Just as we donít want to blame Presidents for net interest payments on debt that was accrued before their tenure, perhaps we should make sure they donít get credit or blame for defense outlays that often are dictated by external events.
I could potentially see pulling out interest paid on Treasury securities from the analysis but to say that military spending is outside of the President's budget purvue is reaching, at best. Likewise for the bailouts - those costs are again in the realm of the President's reach.
If anything, adjusting for inflation and removing interest owed on "the debt" leaves you with this gem:
I believe this! And down is up. Dogs are now sleeping with cats. And we're not heading for a recession. Obama's thrifty ways are why the $16 trillion in debt can just be written off--it's just to ourselves anyway.
BTW, how did the government run up almost $6 trillion in debt with all this teeny tiny Obama spending? Hmmm.....must be Bush.