Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 10, 2014

Derek Thompson, The Atlantic: If you've been paying attention to a certain slice of the financial media -- see: Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and Fox News -- you know for a fact that Obama and his health care law have tag-teamed with global economic trends to drive America inexorably toward a part-time economy. This is a testable claim. So let's test it. The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Another rwing meme down the tubes.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-09 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Another rwing meme down the tubes.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014

They emply thousands to develop new memes. All part-time.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-09 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, there are figures and then there are figures...

"The Labor Department has been collecting this since 1968, a time when only 13.5% of US employees were part-timers. That number peaked at 20.1% in January 2010. The latest data point, going almost four years later, is only modestly lower at 19.0%, donw from 18.9% last month."

www.advisorperspectives.com

I guess the peak in 2010 was 20% part-timers and it's way, way down to 19% now...wow! And here we have the Department of Labor Statistics..I like the part about "involuntary" part-times though. Only 7.3 "involuntary" part-timers last month. Goes to show the economy is booming with this administration's policies. The January unemployment rate decreased, probably because they didn't count the 2.6 million "marginally attached" persons because they didn't look for jobs in the four weeks before the report. Yep, there are figures and then there are figures, sure enough. Looks to me like nothing much has changed from a year ago.

"The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to
find full-time work. (See table A-8.)

In January, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 837,000 discouraged workers in January, about unchanged from a year earlier. Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.8 million persons
marginally attached to the labor force in January had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

www.bls.gov

#3 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-09 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, it must really irk you about that partime stat, eh Corky? Are you really mad that Obama is only creating part-time jobs? That's a FACT you aren't going to get away from..

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2014-02-09 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

BOAZ -

Your "fact" is hyperbole and baseless.

FTA:

But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.

Puts a big stinky turd in that punch bowl you got for a post, now doesn't it?

If you didn't speak in such absolute language, you wouldn't look silly.

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-09 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

just like the CBO report from the other day, right wing liars pretend it means the opposite of what it means, the claim that the jobs being created are all part-time is disproven and the lie that so many full time jobs are being converted is also disproven.
Anecdotally, I know two people right now who were hired for part-time positions who haven't worked fewer than forty hours a single week since they were hired. As employers try to run their businesses with as few employees as possible the one's they have end up working more not fewer hours, even getting some overtime because their bosses would prefer letting them earn than rather than hiring another person.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-09 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny thing is the company my spouse works for as an Area Manager has changed its hiring practices, hiring only part time now [29 hrs a week, with the exception of management positions] specifically because of obamacare. She just lost a full time employee and is now in the process of hiring two part timers as the replacement. Now this company is fairly small [50 stores in 22 states] and only employs about 500 people, but yes obamacare is a driving force in companies structuring down on employee hours.

This company used to hire mostly full time employees in the past and offered health care, vision, detail and 401k. The times they really are changing.

#7 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-02-09 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"just like the CBO report from the other day, right wing liars pretend it means the opposite of what it means, the claim that the jobs being created are all part-time is disproven and the lie that so many full time jobs are being converted is also disproven."

I don't recall anyone saying that the few jobs being created are ALL part-time and according to the Bureau of Labor Statics the total number of INVOLUNTARY part-timers was 7.3 million last month. Those are the total "converted" jobs you say is "disproven." See #3 I posted above. On the other hand, I'm sure you agree with the figures of Derek Thompson in "The Atlantic" more than the BLS report. I'm still working on those numbers it reported, but the fuzzy math is difficult to square with the BLS report. So many lies, so very many lies. Why can't everybody be as truthful as Commissar Barackus and danni?

#8 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-09 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7 | POSTED BY MSGT

I hope you weren't addressing all that to danni because it'll have about as much effect as a fart in a tornado.

#9 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-09 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Both my brothers run a business, and they cut back hours for all thier employees. I feel bad for them, a lot of them are my family. Health Care Yaaaay

#10 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2014-02-09 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...and they cut back hours for all thier employees."

Nothing wins a debate faster than the good old unverifiable personal anecdote.

#11 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-02-09 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"I'm sure you agree with the figures of Derek Thompson in "The Atlantic" more than the BLS report. I'm still working on those numbers it reported, but the fuzzy math is difficult to square with the BLS report. "

Actually I read the report you linked to:

"The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to
find full-time work. (See table A-8.)"

#12 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-09 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Both my brothers run a business, and they cut back hours for all thier employees. I feel bad for them, a lot of them are my family. Health Care Yaaaay"

And you are claiming they did so because of Obamacare? Did they hire additional employees or is their business just slow?

#13 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-09 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

#11 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2014-02-09 03:16 PM | FLAG:

Oh Gee Redial, I thought you were going to counter how cronyism is bad for family business

#14 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2014-02-09 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni they said that a combination of taxes, healthcare and declining economy... I don't own a business, I just hear my brothers complain how they are hurting, that's all. Choose to accept or ignore this post, I don't care. The struggles of my friends and family are real

#15 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2014-02-09 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The struggles of my friends and family are real"

I don't doubt you but I just can't let someone use their family's economic situation be assumed to be overly effected by Obamacare when other things are really to blame because unless they have over 50 employees they aren't required to provide insurance and the mandate isn't in effect yet anyway and will probably be delayed another year. I had a business myself once so I do know how hard it can be to struggle, I finally decided I'd done it long enough and closed. My life has been much easier though somewhat less rewarding since and it did become much easier to keep myself and my kids covered with health insurance too.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-09 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

but I just can't let someone use their family's economic situation be assumed to be overly effected by Obamacare

Yea, cause Obamacare just couldn't be having the effect EVERYONE is saying it does, right Danni?

#17 | Posted by boaz at 2014-02-09 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yea, cause Obamacare just couldn't be having the effect EVERYONE is saying it does, right Danni?"

How could it when the employer mandate hasn't gone into effect?

www.bloomberg.com

#18 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-09 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because Danni, many companies are proactive and are not waiting for the other shoe to fall.

#19 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-02-10 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is interesting......

So how can this be....

In July we are sad to report that America's conversation to a part-time worker society is not "tapering": according to the Household Survey, of the 266K jobs created (note this number differs from the establishment survey), only 35% of jobs, or 92K, were full time.
www.zerohedge.com

It would appear this is a cognitive dissonance, how can both be true?

I believe the part-time workers jobs were terminated..... a churn so to speak.

What the article states, isn't the total amount of part-time jobs created in a year, only the current count. What this means is that there has been a huge amount of churn in the part time market. This is how both statements can be true. Its all a matter of how you look at it.

Why would there be high churn in a part time job? What do you expect in a part-time job? Long term employment? Why would you expect this to be constant? In fact it could be they are hiring less and less part-timers... and letting go those that do exist... as the economy deteriorates.

#20 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-02-10 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently it's no myth that part time jobs as a share of the workforce are historically high. At this moment a 20 year high. The myth is that Obama shares ANY responsibility, going by the headline anyway.

#21 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-10 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't worry, the 1% ers are making record profits.

We just need to redirect those stolen gains back to the middle class like before the evil Reagan implemented his devious plan.

#22 | Posted by drewl at 2014-02-10 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added."

Why would you expect to see that? These are not added jobs these are existing jobs converted to part time.

#23 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-02-10 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

One has to wonder why the author didn't address the recent CBO report.

Maybe because it doesn't get much less partisan than the CBO. And you never pose a question you don't already know the answer to. I can't say that Barak Obama is part of the problem, but he certainly doesn't appear to be part of the solution.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-10 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

It absolutely annoys me to no end when people post graphs that don't go to zero.

It is a free country, and journalists have every constitutional right to claim that we're moving toward a Part-Time America.

Guess it also have every right to distort the facts to say that we aren't too.

#25 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2014-02-10 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

'you people' be sure and have all these "facts" available so you can tell the guy that depends on overtime, much less full time to provide for his family...OH WAIT>>..providing for your family isn't what libs are about......that family stuff gets in the way of the government providing for them....well, at least until the MAKERS get tired of feeding the parasites....then you're list of 'facts' won't matter.

#26 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-10 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

How do you get to "Maybe because it doesn't get much less partisan than the CBO"? It's the same CBO it was when the R's used their numbers to defend Medicare Part D. The CBO is a bunch of bean counters. They're not political. That's why they're usually referred to as the "nonpartisan CBO".

#27 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-11 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

great charts...
destroyed argument...
NEXT!

on the side...

you know if the G.O.P.
spent half, even a quarter
as much time coming up
with legislation or bills
that worked as they do
spending time trying to
tear Obama down...well
then they might have
something other than
lies and slander to
run on...

.....
.......it'll never happen...

#28 | Posted by earthmuse at 2014-02-11 07:25 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Apparently it's no myth that part time jobs as a share of the workforce are historically high. At this moment a 20 year high."

That is simply not true.

""The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. "

#29 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-11 07:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

#29 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-11 07:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

What about the people who work part time for non-economic reasons? That group increased, oddly enough, by almost 500,000. weird!

#30 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2014-02-11 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Another rwing meme down the tubes.
#1 | Posted by Corky

It didn't disprove anything, Rachael.

But, try telling that to the employees of Target, AOL, UPS, and 1000's of other smaller companies.

America is laughing at you.

#31 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's an example: I just retired. I have Medicare, but I also have dependents. I don't want to continue to work full time and I don't need to because I have SS and a small pension from my last employer. I will probably take a part-time job to supplement my retirement income. Because of Obamacare, I can purchase insurance for my wife and my daughter (who would have stayed on my employer plan until she's 26) without having to work full time just for the benefits. Given that 10,000 people in this country turn 65 every day, I imagine that covers a lot of people.

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-11 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Is your wife over 18?

You could do that before Obamacare.

But, it was a lot cheaper for the same health care.

#33 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I had family coverage on my job before I retired. Now I am covered under Medicare but I have to get coverage for her since she's not eligible for Medicare yet and she hasn't had her own separate coverage.

#34 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-11 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I had family coverage on my job before I retired. Now I am covered under Medicare but I have to get coverage for her since she's not eligible for Medicare yet and she hasn't had her own separate coverage.
#34 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Yes, you could do that before the ACA. It was cheaper before the ACA. You can still get it, but it's gone up. Still far cheaper than ObamaCare for the same health care.

#35 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How do you get to "Maybe because it doesn't get much less partisan than the CBO"? It's the same CBO it was when the R's used their numbers to defend Medicare Part D. The CBO is a bunch of bean counters. They're not political. That's why they're usually referred to as the "nonpartisan CBO"."

You're right. I misspoke. What I was trying to state is that the CBO is a non-partisan organization. one that recently had some really strong statements regarding the outcome of ACA.

Here's the thing I don't get. A few months ago you would have heard progiressives lamenting about "underemployed" americans; no doubt as a product of conservative policy and corporate greed. Now you have progressives gushing over underemployment as a function of ACA. now people get to spend more time with their kids. Or on leisure. Or whatever.

I get it. Progressives aren't going to say anything bad about the closest thing they have to a home team (conservatives to the same thing), but it's really starting to get embarrassing.

"Yes, you could do that before the ACA. It was cheaper before the ACA. You can still get it, but it's gone up. Still far cheaper than ObamaCare for the same health care."

I don't think you understand the truly positive outcome of ACA.Namely that progressives can legally buy the votes of low income voters using funds provided by the young, healthy, and upwardly mobile.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-02-11 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

like Lastamerican said, you had the opportunity to do that before, whodaman.

If your wife and daughter moved from your group plan at work to an individual plan, they could have done that with no pre-existing exclusion problems because they had prior coverage. Obamacare didn't address that issue. It didn't have to.

but that brings up a question......if you're on Medicare and if your wife earns no income, can she qualify for a subsidy? Does your retirement income come into play if your wife applies for coverage through the exchange and she can show no income? If you file jointly, then they would likely have to consider your income.

don't know....there are all sorts of situations that come to mind.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-11 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The CBO is a bunch of bean counters. They're not political. That's why they're usually referred to as the "nonpartisan CBO".

true, but that doesn't make the CBO accurate. They take the assumptions given to them and they process it. If the assumptions are off, then the CBO will be off. Not because of their agenda but because of the agenda of the folks providing numbers to the CBO.

A possible good example of this would the assumptions that were fed to the CBO on the number of young/healthy folks that will enroll in Obamacare. Personally, I think the CBO is heavily relying on accurate information as to the ratio of younger/healthier folks enrolling.....so if that ratio is not met, then the CBO's predictions on this issue can be way off. non partisan does not equal accurate.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-11 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That group increased, oddly enough, by almost 500,000. weird!"

Whodaman's post:

:Here's an example: I just retired. I have Medicare, but I also have dependents. I don't want to continue to work full time and I don't need to because I have SS and a small pension from my last employer. I will probably take a part-time job to supplement my retirement income:

Not so wierd at all. People wh previously needed full time work to get healthcare insurance from their employer but don't need full time income choose to get it now through the exchange and work fewer hours.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-11 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Want to work part time and still make a ton of money? Run for congress.

If you want even less work and more money run as a republican.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-11 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Want to work part time and still make a ton of money? Run for congress.
If you want even less work and more money end your career in congress and become a lobbyist.

Just another take on the same idea.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-11 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:


Not so wierd at all. People wh previously needed full time work to get healthcare insurance from their employer but don't need full time income choose to get it now through the exchange and work fewer hours.

#39 | Posted by danni

But you could do it before the ACA and it was cheaper. The ACA caused those Premiums to go up and that's all.

What you are talking about is that people can quit their jobs or go part time and get subsidized health insurance. That's the only difference.

#42 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:


If you want even less work and more money run as a republican.
#40 | Posted by ClownShack

Actually, most Democrats are Lawyers, most of whom, probably haven't worked that much in their lives.

Most Republicans are a cross-section of educated Americans most of whom have worked and earned their place. That's why they are Republican!

#43 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:


...end your career in congress and become a lobbyist.

Just another take on the same idea.

#41 | Posted by danni

I agree with this sentiment. If you are a good BS-er and can kiss ---, you are a a good candidate as a lobbyist.

#44 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

there is a little more to being a lobbyist than that. those are skills you need, no doubt, but you also need very key relationships, specific industry knowledge, and everyone needs to know that.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-11 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many times does this scenario repeat itself on the DR each day?

Right winger makes some stupid statement.
Left winger responds with facts refuting said stupid statement.
Right winger disappears to some other thread, to make another stupid statement.

Discuss.

#46 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-02-11 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What you are talking about is that people can quit their jobs or go part time and get subsidized health insurance. That's the only difference.

#42 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN AT 2014-02-11 04:13 PM | FLAG: i.e., paid for by the tax paying working class.

#47 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-02-11 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

ALMOST unbelievable that I just read someone talking about the gop manipulating the cbo after what dems did for obamacare..

used lies, deceit and fraud to get the cost down to 888 billion...It's so much less than the actual cost.>THAT WE PREDICTED...that it almost seems like pennies on the dollar and may well be before this two bit dictator gets through CHANGING that law for political advantage.

#48 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-11 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

and it's certainly no surprise that libs are arguing for more people to WORK LESS and still GET MORE FREE stuff.....

#49 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-02-11 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | Posted by mOntecOre

Uhhhh. I think Danni is a Left winger, there, dude.

#50 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 10:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | Posted by mOntecOre

I think mOntecOre said something stupid and left to say something stupid on another thread.

#51 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-12 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did they hire additional employees or is their business just slow?

#13 | Posted by danni

"At this point does it really matter?" quoting the ugly broad in the pants suit.

#52 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-12 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

and it's certainly no surprise that libs are arguing for more people to WORK LESS and still GET MORE FREE stuff.....

#49 | Posted by afkabl2

TANSTAAFL

#53 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-12 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

It must be so horrible for the wing nuts to see Obama helping Americans achieving more mobility in the workplace and helping to untether health care from our employment.

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-12 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

and it's certainly no surprise that libs are arguing for more people to WORK LESS and still GET MORE FREE stuff.....

#49 | Posted by afkabl2

TANSTAAFL

#53 | Posted by donnerboy

That's because I'm paying for it.

By George, I think he's GOT IT!

#55 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-12 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

It must be so horrible for the wing nuts to see Obama helping Americans achieving more mobility in the workplace and helping to untether health care from our employment.

#54 | Posted by donnerboy

The ACA didn't do that. What it did was enable people to quit their jobs and get subsidized health care.

Anyone could buy insurance outside of employment.

The problem was that there were those with preexisting. The Republicans had (and still have) a plan that was going to cost far less and was not a plan to redistribute wealth.

You need to get over the fact that ObamaCare is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth.

Put that in your willfully ignorant pipe and smoke it.

Obama will have a similar legacy to Clinton, Bush Jr., and Carter... None but being a clown.

#56 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-12 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You need to get over the fact that ObamaCare is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth."

like it or not, it's probably the main reason why he likes it.

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-12 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Myth of Obama's Part-Time America

Not a myth after all.

#58 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-12 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Myth of Obama's Part-Time America

Not a myth after all.
#58 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

Link?

#59 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-12 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:


Link?

#59 | Posted by rstybeach11

Are you being serious?

#60 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-12 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you being serious?
#60 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

Abso-fncking-lutely.

#61 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-12 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#46 | Posted by mOntecOre
Uhhhh. I think Danni is a Left winger, there, dude.
#50 | Posted by LastAmerican"

Read #4, then read #5, then look for Boaz's retort.

Report back stat, kid.

#62 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-02-13 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Myth of Obama's Part-Time America
Not a myth after all.
#58 | POSTED BY LASTAMERICAN

Link?
#59 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2014-02-12 07:57 PM

You won't be able to view it. His source is his ---.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-13 02:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ha ha ha ha!!!

The source is this article, dimwit. It's all conjecture.

#64 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-13 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:


Report back stat, kid.
#62 | Posted by mOntecOre

You didn't read the rest of the thread.

do that and get back to me.

#65 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-13 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort