Who do you support for Governor in Pe...
Ridge Runner

Philadelphia, PA

#54421 Nov 23, 2013
The New Bobby Teabag wrote:
<quoted text>You do know fox is rated #1 in the ratings and has been for the last 10 years don't you? Their spread just keep getting wider and wider. You can post all the BS you want about Fox but more people watch Fox. People are wising up! They are tired of the half truths and outright lies from liberal news stations. Their days are numbered. You my little brown fairy and the other sheeples are becoming obsolete. You know what I posted is the truth and your constant bashing is more proof. When nutcases like you have nothing you resort to your lying and bashing. LMAO....you're a retard.
Yeah....they're sure tired of half truths ...they must want the full lie if they're watching the FOX delusions.

Personally I havnt watched more than a total of 1 hour of FOX news in the past 5 years and I'm feeling great....
You've really got to be a dunce not to know when your being force fed...the Hannity, O'Reilly, Etc.
nut juice propoganda.....

You're not special in any way, you're just stupid.

Keep it up though...we Democrats thrive on your ignorance.

So... Keep up the good work.
R Limpdick

West Mifflin, PA

#54423 Nov 23, 2013
While remaining on top overall, Fox lost nearly 20% of its total audience as compared to the same period last year. Even worse, in the critical advertising demographic of 18-54 year olds, Fox scared off a full third of their viewers. Only MSNBC managed to stay relatively flat, holding onto most of their audience.

On specific programs, Fox’s top rated show, The O’Reilly Factor, dropped by 26%. His primetime colleagues, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren, similarly flopped by 28% and 35% respectively. That contrasts sharply with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show that increased 5%, the only program in its time period to rise.

These numbers attest to the downward spiral that Fox has been experiencing since last year’s election. They recognized the serious disconnect between them and the public as they scrambled to make personnel changes and ditch some of their most alienating personalities. That overhaul saw the departure of Sarah Palin and Dick Morris, and it resulted in far fewer appearances by Karl Rove and Donald Trump.

Those adjustments do not seem to have turned the ebbing tide that saw Fox sink to its lowest point in twelve years in January. Which is not surprising since their window-dressing alterations simply exchanged their past losers with characters like Scott Brown, Erick Erickson, and Mark Levin, who seem unlikely to have a positive impact.

Furthermore, MSNBC’s steady performance is poised for future gains as demonstrated by the debut of All In with Chris Hayes. The new Hayes program improved on the numbers of the Ed Schultz Show that it replaced (+45% in the demo), and fell just 10,000 short of O’Reilly’s numbers. Also notable is that the younger demo for Hayes represents about a third of his total audience, while O’Reilly’s demo viewers are a mere 14% of his total. That certifies the strength MSNBC has with the next generation of news consumers, and the weariness of the long-in-the-tooth O’Reilly/Fox fans.

Hopefully this is evidence that America’s television viewers are evolving to become a more discriminating audience that values truth, integrity, and intelligent discourse. The Fox model of leading viewers around by the nose, misrepresenting the facts, and aiming for the shallowest, most inflammatory slapfights on the air, may be losing its appeal (except on the Fox Nation web site). That would be a positive step forward and proof that humans are advancing in the passage of time. Thanks, Darwin.

Take a peek here:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/...
R Limpdick

West Mifflin, PA

#54424 Nov 23, 2013
“Fox News has hit a record low in the four years that we’ve been doing this poll. 41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not. Fox has maintained most of its credibility with Republicans, dropping just from 74/15 to 70/15 over that period of time. But it’s been losing what standing it had with Democrats (from 30/52 to 22/66) and independents (from 41/44 to 32/56).

“We find once again this year that Democrats trust everything except Fox, and Republicans don’t trust anything other than Fox. Democrats put the most faith in PBS (+61 at 72/11), followed by NBC (+45 at 61/16), MSNBC (+39 at 58/19), CBS (+38 at 54/16), CNN (+36 at 57/21), ABC (+35 at 51/16), and Comedy Central (+10 at 38/28). Out of the non-Fox channels Republicans have the most faith in PBS at -21 (27/48), followed by NBC (-48 at 18/66), CNN (-49 at 17/66), ABC (-56 at 14/70), MSNBC (-56 at 12/68), CBS (-57 at 15/72), and Comedy Central (-58 at 8/66).

When it comes to asking Americans which single outlet they trust the most and least out of the ones we polled on, Fox News once again wins both honors. 34% say it’s the one they trust the most, compared to 13% for PBS, 12% for CNN, 11% for ABC, 8% for MSNBC, 6% for CBS, and 5% each for Comedy Central and NBC. Fox News is the choice of 67% of Republicans, while Democrats basically split their allegiances four ways between ABC and CNN, both at 17%, and MSNBC and PBS, both at 16%.”

Even more Americans identify Fox News as the outlet they trust the least – 39% give it that designation [compared] to 14% for MSNBC, 13% for CNN, 12% for Comedy Central, 5% for ABC and CBS, 3% for NBC, and 1% for PBS. 60% of Democrats give it their lowest marks while Republicans split between MSNBC (24%), CNN (19%), and Comedy Central (14%) on that front.

Take a peek here:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/...
R Limpdick

West Mifflin, PA

#54425 Nov 23, 2013
The fact that Fox comes out on top of the “most trusted” list is not particularly noteworthy. That only occurred because Fox viewers voted en bloc for their favorite network while all other viewers split their votes across the board. Liberals are not as hypnotically attached to any single source of news as are the disciples of Fox. It is far more significant that Fox has a net negative rating despite the glassy-eyed devotion of their audience. Also significant is the fact that the combined non-Fox networks beat Fox for trustworthiness by 60% to 34%. Finally, the sharply downward trend has to have Fox worried.

This massive leak of faith in Fox is accompanied by their corresponding unpopularity as measured by their Nielsen ratings. The most recent numbers showed Fox dropping to a twelve year low, which puts them back at their position prior to 9/11.

Take a peek here:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/...
R Limpdick

West Mifflin, PA

#54426 Nov 23, 2013
9/11 was an integral part of the rise of Fox News. It was the catalyst that formed their America-first persona and thrust them into a role as cheerleaders rather than journalists.

These twelve year lows for their best known programs portend trouble for Fox as their audience tires of a schedule that hasn’t changed in more than a decade. Creaky old timers O’Reilly and Hannity have been in their time slots since the network launched in 1996. Worse yet for Fox, their slump is occurring at a time when MSNBC is soaring. For most of the time since last November’s election, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell have been beating Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity in the demo. In addition to those victories, most of MSNBC’s programs are the top performers among 18-34 year olds, which means that they have a significant advantage with the next generation of television news consumers. MSNBC is also number one with African-American viewers, a status they have enjoyed for 36 consecutive months.

The graying Fox News is a phenomenon that is occurring with both their programs and their audience. While many of Fox’s shows held steady in total audience, they plunged in the younger demos. This was true across the board with primetime and all other dayparts, including their three hour morning block, Fox & Friends. Conversely, MSNBC’s audience was up in both the demo and total audience. The ratings story for MSNBC is no longer merely one of faster growth and higher percentage gains. They are now beating their Fox competition head-on in primetime and challenging them respectably in daytime.

Take a peek here:

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/...
Rush Limpdick

West Mifflin, PA

#54427 Nov 23, 2013
The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this is that, despite Fox’s inflated ego and boastful self-importance, it is really a pathetically lame distributor of rightist propaganda. They threw everything they had at Obama and his eponymous health care program and came out farther underwater than when they started. This result is similar to last year’s election when Fox targeted Obama as something just shy of the Anti-Christ, but he still won by a sizable margin. And, not to be overlooked, it was a campaign that focused heavily on ObamaCare. More recently, Fox’s efforts to stir up their fringy malcontents to get them to take to the streets ended in an embarrassing flop.

There are plenty of reasons to worry about the destructive influence of Fox News. It is a bad example for other news outlets who think that conservative extremism might be a viable business model. It provides a platform and encouragement for crackpots like Cruz, Michele Bachamnn, Louie Gohmert, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, etc., to cling to positions that are wildly out of touch with the American people. It muddies the debate over critical public affairs with misrepresentations and lies. But one thing we do not have to worry about is whether Fox is effective at persuading Americans to join their Blockhead Brigade. On that measure Fox has proved to be pitifully feeble despite their exhaustive and desperate intentions.

----------
The New Bobby Teabag

Clearfield, PA

#54428 Nov 23, 2013
Ridge Runner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah....they're sure tired of half truths ...they must want the full lie if they're watching the FOX delusions.
Personally I havnt watched more than a total of 1 hour of FOX news in the past 5 years and I'm feeling great....
You've really got to be a dunce not to know when your being force fed...the Hannity, O'Reilly, Etc.
nut juice propoganda.....
You're not special in any way, you're just stupid.
Keep it up though...we Democrats thrive on your ignorance.
So... Keep up the good work.
You watched one hour of Fox News in the last five years and you know all that goes on? LMFAO...Don't you feel stupid now? LMFAO...Do you know Obama was re-elected? Oops, I meant stole the election...massive voter fraud, tampering with the voting machines.

Like I said in my previous post about being retarded...you are a retard. Did you sign up for Obamacare yet and save lots of money? Did you get to keep your doctor...PERIOD! I'm done for now, you can go back to sucking and spitting your obama nut juice into your canning jars. LMAO @ retards like you.
Rush Limpdick

West Mifflin, PA

#54429 Nov 23, 2013
Faux News

This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.......aka... Limbaugh nut juice guzzlers.....
Rush Limpdick

West Mifflin, PA

#54430 Nov 23, 2013
Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

.
policy holder

West Mifflin, PA

#54434 Nov 23, 2013
The Truth Is Obamacare Is Working

Deborah Cavallaro was making the rounds on television complaining about how her current insurance plan was canceled under Obamacare. So Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik talked to her. Her current plan cost $293 per month but had a deductible of $5,000 per year and out-of-pocket annual limits of $8,500. Also, the current plan covered just two doctor's visits per year.

But in the California insurance exchange, which Hiltzik helped Cavallaro check, she could get a "silver" plan for $333 per month —$40 more than she's currently paying. But the new plan has only a $2,000 deductible and maximum out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350. Plus all doctor visits would be covered. Hiltzik writes, "Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile."

Dianne Barrette also popped up on television on a CBS news report in which she lamented that her $54-per-month insurance plan had been canceled under Obamacare. But Nancy Metcalf at Consumer Reports investigated Barrette's story and found that her current policy was a "textbook example of a junk plan that isn't real health insurance at all." According to Metcalf, if Barrette had ever tried to use her insurance for anything more than a sporadic doctor's visit, "she would have ended up with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt."

The plan, for instance, only pays for hospitalization in cases of "complications of pregnancy." Instead, Metcalf found that Barrette could get a "silver" plan in the state insurance exchange for $165 per month that would actually cover Barrette in the case of any sort of serious or even moderate illness. Which is the very definition of insurance, isn't it?

Obamcare in time will put the scam insurance companies out of business that had been taking healthcare costs from hard working people and if a sickness comes up the policy holders get a rude awakening when their policies dont cover 99% of illnesses ....and huge deductables !

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/kohn-ob...

Thanks Barack !
policy holder

West Mifflin, PA

#54435 Nov 23, 2013
The problem is that so many people have invested time, energy, and anger into believing that ACA is a disaster - they have too much invested to waste time with facts that might prove them wrong. Instead, they are forced to conclude that the journalist is either making things up or simply spinning the truth - because reading with an open mind would risk the possibility that they have hated Obama's law so much for no real reason. Most people - liberal or conservative - would prefer to live a lie than face the fact that they have been wrong for years.

Also, remember that as many as half of all posters are actually working - they were hired to spread propaganda (a "message" if you prefer) about one thing or other. It is cheaper and more effective to push your message this way than it is to buy, say, TV ads - and the hired workers care far more about their paycheck than being logical or reasonable (because if they deviate from the message they probably get fired). For the past month there has been a huge influx of anti-Obamacare messages largely because of a little over $100 million invested in these ad campaigns by conservative political groups (who saw an opening due to the website glitches, so decided to exploit it).

In short, you are never going to get the anti-ACA people o acknowledge it is anything short of evil - because half are utterly entrenched in their beliefs and half are hired to simply post messages, not have opinions. To be fair, many of the pro-ACA folks are fanatics, too... but right now the facts seem to support their side slightly. Well, the facts about costs - maybe not the facts about the website!

Thanks Barack !
Ad hominem attacks

Los Angeles, CA

#54436 Nov 23, 2013
Rush Limpdick wrote:
Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
.
..........

Even Crack-Smoking Toronto Mayor Has Higher Approval Ratings Than Obama

Friday, 22 Nov 2013 07:33 PM

By Todd Beamon

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford admitted to smoking crack cocaine,

has been in "drunken stupors,"

and was caught on camera in an expletive-laced rant.

But he's still having a better month than President Barack Obama.

Ford has the approval of 42 percent of 1,049 Toronto voters surveyed by Forum Research.

The poll results,

released on Friday,

came as Ford saw most of his powers stripped by the city council in Canada's largest city.

South of the border,

Obama must wish he were doing that well.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/rob-ford-popu...
policy holder

West Mifflin, PA

#54437 Nov 23, 2013
The pre-Obamacare status quo is the system that allowed insurers to drop sick people and not let them buy insurance at any price.
Under ACA, everyone who wants coverage can get it, and they can get it for no more than 9.5% of their income.
The plans that have been cancelled were either cancelled because they didn't comply with the law or they were cancelled at the insurers' discretion because they rolled out better policies at the same price point.
95% of Americans (all who have coverage through their employer, Medicare, Medicaid or other public providers) will not be affected by changes involving individual coverage.
ONLY those Americans that get their policies on the individual insurance market will see modifications to their existing plans, or cancellations that would allow them to get a new much better policy right away. There are some policies that can be grandfathered if people want to keep insurance that’s substandard.
A significant portion of the affected 5% of people with individual coverage will end up paying less for better policies when they shop around in the new exchanges.

Thanks Barack !
policy holder

West Mifflin, PA

#54438 Nov 23, 2013
Learn the facts about Obamacare - it'll help you, your friends and relatives, and US:
- Medicare beneficiaries had already saved billions on prescription drugs because of Obamacare, which gradually closes a gap in prescription coverage since 2011
- insurance companies that spend more than a specified portion of premiums on administrative costs and profits must give a rebate to enrollees
- the health care exchanges could reject premium increases that insurers propose if they think they are too high.
- small businesses under 50 workers are not covered by Obamacare. If small businesses choose to cover their workers,
they gets 35% tax credit for covering. The credit goes to 50% from 2014
- Obamacare reins in waste, fraud and abuse by imposing tough new disclosure requirements to identify high-risk providers who have defrauded the American taxpayer. It gives states new authority to prevent providers who have been penalized in one state from setting up in another
- and of course no life time coverage limit and no denying of coverage due to preexisting conditions

Thanks Barack !
Ad hominem attacks

Los Angeles, CA

#54439 Nov 23, 2013
policy holder wrote:
The Truth Is Obamacare Is Working
Deborah Cavallaro was making the rounds on television complaining about how her current insurance plan was canceled under Obamacare. So Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik talked to her. Her current plan cost $293 per month but had a deductible of $5,000 per year and out-of-pocket annual limits of $8,500. Also, the current plan covered just two doctor's visits per year.
But in the California insurance exchange, which Hiltzik helped Cavallaro check, she could get a "silver" plan for $333 per month —$40 more than she's currently paying. But the new plan has only a $2,000 deductible and maximum out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350. Plus all doctor visits would be covered. Hiltzik writes, "Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile."
Dianne Barrette also popped up on television on a CBS news report in which she lamented that her $54-per-month insurance plan had been canceled under Obamacare. But Nancy Metcalf at Consumer Reports investigated Barrette's story and found that her current policy was a "textbook example of a junk plan that isn't real health insurance at all." According to Metcalf, if Barrette had ever tried to use her insurance for anything more than a sporadic doctor's visit, "she would have ended up with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt."
The plan, for instance, only pays for hospitalization in cases of "complications of pregnancy." Instead, Metcalf found that Barrette could get a "silver" plan in the state insurance exchange for $165 per month that would actually cover Barrette in the case of any sort of serious or even moderate illness. Which is the very definition of insurance, isn't it?
Obamcare in time will put the scam insurance companies out of business that had been taking healthcare costs from hard working people and if a sickness comes up the policy holders get a rude awakening when their policies dont cover 99% of illnesses ....and huge deductables !
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/kohn-ob...
Thanks Barack !
..........

A Good Product (Mostly) Sells Itself – a good product doesn’t need excessive marketing

rave on sycophantic idiot obummer drone
Ridge Runner

Arlington, VA

#54440 Nov 23, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
Goldberg Outlines ‘Three Basic Untruths’ President Told in Selling Obamacare
November 21, 2013
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364497/g...
Bernie Goldberg....hahahaa
Now there's your man...just another bitter oddball creep...if I were the main stream media I would have expell his odd ball ass too..
He's just as credible as the plagaurizing master prick Rand Paul...aka copy cat.
Just another tea guzzler with a defective truth filter in his brain...
G Bush

West Mifflin, PA

#54441 Nov 23, 2013
Data shows demand for reform. Kaiser Family Foundation’s March 2013 health care tracking — the same survey that showed only 37 percent of respondents held a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act — found that a plurality of those surveyed actually support specific provisions of Obamacare.

Eighty-eight percent were in favor of tax credits for small businesses to buy insurance; 81 percent were in favor of closing the Medicare prescription coverage gap; 76 percent were in favor of extending coverage to dependents; 71 percent were in favor of expanding Medicaid; 66 percent were in favor of banning exclusions for preexisting conditions; and 57 percent were in favor of the employer mandate.

The only provision that regularly polled negatively was the individual mandate, but the requirement that all Americans purchase affordable insurance is necessary if excluding those with preexisting conditions is prohibited. To function as intended, the marketplaces need a broad, healthy risk pool to keep staggering rate increases from occurring. The premiums of healthy, cheap-to-insure people cover the big bills for the relatively small number of sick people.

Thanks Barack!

Take a peek here:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/why-does-t...
G Bush

West Mifflin, PA

#54442 Nov 23, 2013
The Republicans hate Obamacare, Porter suggests, because they're terrified that Americans are going to like it.

Specifically, they're terrified that some of the tens of millions of Americans who will have greater access to health insurance under Obamacare will realize that the new law is actually not going to destroy the country — that, in fact, it is going to improve life for tens of millions of Americans, including, importantly, many who vote Republican.

Many of the Americans who will benefit from Obamacare, Porter points out, are relatively poor red-state Republicans who are currently devout supporters of the Republican Party. For decades, the Republican pitch to these voters has been that "less government is better." If Obamacare works the way it is supposed to, however, it's possible that "more government" might actually seem to be better — and that many die-hard Republican voters might realize that.

After all, even now, before Obamacare has really gotten going, Americans actually very much like the specific benefits of Obamacare — as long as you don't call it "Obamacare."

As Michael Hiltzik reported in the LA Times yesterday, when Americans are asked whether they like "Obamacare," a majority say no. But when Americans are asked whether they support what Obamacare actually does, they love it:

Here are figures from Kaiser's March 2013 poll:

Tax credits for small businesses to buy insurance: 88% in favor.

Closing the Medicare drug benefit doughnut hole: 81% in favor.

Extension of dependent coverage to offspring up to age 26: 76% in favor.

Expanding Medicaid: 71% in favor.

Ban on exclusions for preexisting conditions: 66% in favor.

Employer mandate: 57% in favor.

Thanks Barack !

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-republican...
Dave Rogers

West Mifflin, PA

#54443 Nov 23, 2013
Republicans in Congress, you may have heard, are determined to stop Obamacare. So determined are some of them that they allowed the federal government to shut down when their efforts to stop the Affordable Care Act failed. But some Republican governors have a different view: Increasingly, they’re turning to a controversial part of Obamacare to save them politically.
The latest was Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a dismally unpopular Republican who’s up for reelection next year. After months of insisting his state wouldn’t agree to expand Medicaid — a component of health-care reform that the Supreme Court made optional for states — Corbett suddenly flipped last month, announcing that Pennsylvania would negotiate with the federal government to accept the expansion money through a modified program.
If his plan is approved, Corbett would become the 10th of the 30 GOP governors to take advantage of the Medicaid-expansion funds made available by Obamacare — up from just four at the beginning of this year. Perhaps not coincidentally, most of the others are also vulnerable incumbents seeking reelection in 2014.
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, for example, was damaged in his home state by a divisive battle over right-to-work legislation last December. A poll in June had Snyder trailing Democrat Mark Schauer by 4 points. But last month, after a heavy lobbying effort of his own party in the state legislature, Snyder got a Medicaid expansion passed in Michigan.* A subsequent poll put Snyder 8 points ahead of Schauer.“I think certainly the success of Medicaid expansion was a boost for him among independents and maybe even some Democrats,” pollster Bernie Porn told MLive by way of explaining the surge.
The governors up for reelection next year were all elected in the 2010 Tea Party wave, many in states — like Michigan and Pennsylvania — that went on to vote for President Obama by wide margins in 2012. Now, their reelections hinge on their ability to win votes beyond the GOP base in a year when the Tea Party fervor has cooled substantially.
Thanks Barack !
Take a peek here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...

“Trump is so right!”

Since: Jan 07

Pittsburgh, PA

#54445 Nov 23, 2013
The company that I retired from just announced a "fix" for the dependent coverage of those aged 26 and under. They have stopped insuring all dependents. Their health care now is for the employee only.

I wonder how many other companies and unions will follow suit?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Amid 911 staffing shortage, York Countya Sun Trifecta 2
News The Greene Turtle not coming to York County Apr 20 Sir Speedy 2
News Police: Woman went to Atlantic City, left 3 kid... (Mar '11) Apr 11 I WAS the 12 year... 158
News Lost Civil War gold in Pennsylvania woods? (Mar '08) Apr 10 Army of Northern ... 36
News Bankrupt store chain Bon-Ton gets acquisition o... Apr 10 CityguyUSA 1
News York City RDA soliciting bids for Penn Marketa Apr 7 CityguyUSA 1
News Valley View: Comedy and Contention: Casting All... Apr 3 weapon X 2

York Jobs

Personal Finance

York Mortgages