Each 1/2 hour of Fox News contains this much BS.
(Mark Hurd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: fastfood via Advanced Lol Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous This would all be so much easier | CREEPY Next »
Each 1/2 hour of Fox News contains
» 603 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Razgriz 1, also know… on Game of Thrones Characters as… Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… DevAd on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Pratrp on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Stinky Whizzleteats on There’s One! itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Daily Squee: Interspecies Love - What a Lovely Hat!
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Kappa Alpha Tau
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Cyoot Puppy ob teh Day: Redy 4 mai kloseup
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
What?
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
THE BREAD. ITS TOO MUCH.
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Not So Shy Panda
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Poor Reginald
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Let's Get Hammered!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
He's Right About Almost Everything
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Hulk Smashes: The Kardashians
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
This Strawberry Totally Looks Like Goldfish Cracker
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Tweedy Squirrels
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Because the rest of the media is so much better. The only reason FOX is singled out is because it is the only major news station that leans right.
there are plenty of right-leaning news outlets. the reason fox is singled out is because it lies.
If you think FOX lies any more than other major news networks, you’re deluding yourself. And there are plenty of right wing news outlets, but we’re talking about major TV stations.
FOX is singled out because they lean right, that is evident to anyone who can look at things from different perspectives.
Fox is not a “station”, it’s a network. TV news in general is right-of-center, but of course Fox is on the far right.
This caption is not even remotely funny. However, it’s fitting that Fox would be the target of a poorly thought-out, rather childish insult, since that’s much of the content of Fox itself.
Paul: Hate to disagree with you there, but this Countries media outlets (including broadcast news) tends to be left leaning. If last years elections don’t show you that, nothing will.
Since I don’t know how left you are, then it is possible the media outlets are right to you, but def not right of center.
Fox is considered childish (mostly by the left) is b/c they do not agree with your idealogue. Just the reason I can’t stand to watch CNN, MSNBC, or the local nightly news is simply the Obama praise, it gives me a headache. “Next on the nightly news, Obama kissed a baby, and then ate a french fry.” You think Anderson Cooper doesn’t throw out insults? Or how about all these 1 on 1 interviews with Obama when they throw out snowball questions, “So what will be the name of the first dog?” Meanwhile the economy is in the tank, he just rushed congress through a stimulous bill that had minimal public support, or the lack of public support in closing Gitmo, Yet the most important quesiton was “What’s the name of the first dog?”. I can’t respect a media outlet like that. I just can’t.
And I can’t respect a network that pretends to be “fair & balanced” when it clearly is NOT, and yes, FOXNews lies CONSTANTLY.
How does it “lie”? Presenting a different point of view from yours is not necesarily lying. I could say that CNN constantly lies. Wolf Blitzer constantly lies, so does Anderson Cooper. Or Chris Matthews lies about his show “Hard Ball” only if you’re a conservative, Soft Ball to democrats and liberals.
Can we agree that all news media (Tv, radio, paper and web) are biassed?
If so, then I think how I handle Middle East stories works. I read the BBC, Al Jazeera and Jerusalem Post sites, and sort out the facts by comparing and contrasting the 3.
Every news organization leans one way or the other, hence they are biased. The problems I have with Fox are detailed in “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism”.
I refuse to have anything to do with Rupert Murdoch’s “news” and broadcasting empire that I don’t have to.
Well to Fox’s defense, the media does seem to attack Fox News. It prett ymuch started when Fox News received better ratings. Whether it’s the liberals looking for “lies” or conservatives looking to bash liberals, Fox News is watched. They don’t always lie, but instead have bias reporting. Similar to how CNN or MSNBC have totally hidden the IG scandal and Obama’s firing of federal attornies. Once again Bush fired people and the whole world knew and were ready to kill him, CNN and MSNBC “forgot” to mention that this is done by every President (including Clinton) and it’s within the rights of the organization to do it. However what is missing is that Obama agreed to giving 30 days notice for firing the IG, yet he didn’t.
Fox is attacked because it is so ridiculously biased even right wing reporters are disgusted. When you refer to Michelle Obama as someone’s “baby mama” or when they repeatedly mix up Obama and Osama “by accident” you’re going to draw criticism.
Yep, and I’m sure it was just an accident when CNN and MSNBC referred to tax protesters as “teabaggers” over and over and over again.
The “teabaggers” called themselves “teabaggers.” Fox also called them teabaggers, I believe. People shouldn’t be offended by those types of insults if they are the ones who are calling themselves dumb things.
I’ve got to agree with you on that one, Igloo. I can’t help but think that the Republicans as a whole can’t possibly be that naive to call themselves “teabaggers” without knowing the connotations, but the other part of my brain says that yes, yes they ARE that naive.
I actually agree with you, to a certain point, on this one, ILPB. I can’t be accused of being a conservative; however, I do watch Fox News from time to time to see what their take on an issue is, so that I can see both sides.
What I can’t stand about Fox, however, is that when they have a “liberal” guet on, they wind up shouting them down, telling them to “shut up” and then turn their mikes off. If they are being “Fair and Balanced” as their motto claims, then allow the “liberal” guest to speak! Have debate! Have dialogue!
In watching MSNBC last night, Olbermann did tell the President that he thought he was “God Damn Wrong” on the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy, and he’s been very critical of how he’s handling Gitmo detainees and whether Obama should push for prosecution on torture. Now, does that mean he’s “Fair and Balanced”? No…not by a long shot; however, I think there’s more to the “journalism” that he and Rachel Maddow do as compared to O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck…
I don’t consider what Olberman, Maddow, O’Reilly, and Hannity do to be “journalism”. They are pundits, which are almost mutually exclusive at this point to journalism. Journalism died with Alfred R Murrow.
@Froo: Great point… I’ve heard Beck say that he’s not a journalist a couple of times in interviews. Not sure about the rest, but you’ve hit on a good point… possessing a journalism degree doesn’t mean you’re a journalist. Olbermann and Maddow are more the pundit type.
Actually, I take back the Murrow comment. Journalism was still gasping it’s last pitiful breaths, and then Dan Rather came along and stabbed it through the heart with his Cross pen, thereby dispatching it forever.
…and then Geraldo Rivera pissed on its corpse.
“Oh the humanity!!!”
…while revealing the dying Journalism’s location in the sand on world wide TV.
Followed by mustache rides. (I think I hurt my own brain on that one).
*Doing best Geraldo impression*
*twisting moustache with fingers*
“Hey baby, wanna see Capone’s secret vault?”
No! No, I don’t! Stay back or get pepper spray in the face, Geraldo!
I will always love Uncle Walter. Murrow aside, that is one man who defines integrity. Everyone trusted that man to tell the whole story, and you could count on not getting an editorial. I still remember his face when Kennedy was killed. The look of absolute awe when men landed on the moon. His disgust when Nixon was found out to be involved with Watergate.
-
Yep, I loved Uncle Walter and knew it was the end of an era when he retired.
Olbermann is clearly biased, but is far less of a jackass than O’Reilly, Hannity, & Beck IMO. I would agree with calling them all pundits, but there’s something about Olbermann’s that just feels more legitimate to me than anything I’ve ever seen or heard on O’Reilly or Hannity.
Eric, from my side of the fence, I feel the same way about Hannity.
Who doesn’t?
Hannity just needs to get off the air sometime this month and I’ll eat him for you guys.
Just sayin’, if you can get me a clear shot, I’m a pretty quick cannibal.
Always suspected you are man who “eats” other men…….
For one, Fox has repeatedly made ‘mistakes’ in labeling Republicans who were caught in scandals as democrats. There’s an example of that just a little down the front page of PK, actually.
Fox has also spread a lot of false scare tactic shit, like how Prop 8 would make homosexual marriage a subject taught to elementary school kids, when that wasn’t the case at all. They also were the driving force behind the tea parties and outright lied about the number of participants.
Sorry, early morning typo- not passing prop 8 would make it taught in schools. Bleh, I need to not stay up so late.
THANK YOU!!! SOMEONE AGREES WITH ME!!!
Name one……
Obama lies but no one calls HIM on it…..so no, noone is balanced!
The mainstream media is generally conservative, but Fox News is basically fascist-leaning Republican propaganda.
Rightwingers can’t accept the fact that the media treats Obama with more respect than they did the idiot Bush because Obama is worthy of more respect.
<<<>>>
Fascists are Leftists like yourselves. No matter how many times you say right wing=fascism it will not change the defintion. The molecular formula for water is H2O. If you start saying it is LiCl it doesn’t change. It just proves your stupidity…DUH!!!!!
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Shameless Copy/Paste from Wiki:
Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9]
So liberal minded folks who support free expression, creativity, open mindedness, new ideas, equal rights, and personal freedoms, are fascists? Really?
I’m not saying conservatives are fascists, that would be ignorant. All I’m saying is that calling liberals fascists is contradictory.
The Steve: One problem is that there are many Liberals DO NOT support free expression, open midness, equal rights, and personal freedoms. Instead it’s support free expression (as long as it agrees with me), open mindness (as long as it agrees with me), equal rights (quotas and special priveleges to minorities to make up for years of opression, letting Black Panthers intimidate voters, throwing out test scores b/c not enough minoirities passed, women having a 75% more chance of winning custody of children, etc.. etc… etc…) and personal freedoms (as long as those freedoms align with my views). I can cite many examples of the above, but I know you’ll come back with “but conservatives do….” and yes there are some of us that do that (stoopid extreme Christian Right). But if you were to look back on the History of this country you would see that Republican Presidents did more for Civil Rights than Democrats.
I think I basically agree with you; for example, the operative word in so-called “Positive Discrimination” is discrimination rather than positive, yes?
My stance on abortion is that you should have the right to choose to have, or not have, the termination.
I only get antsy about when you try to take my rights away, as long as those rights don’t place others at risk. For example, I support speed limits in town, but see no sound reason to have them on roads where the traffic density is about 1 vehicle every 5 miles and the sight line about 10 miles each way.
Paws: Exactly. Sounds like another phrase that was utterly stupid “Separate but equal”. Ummm **EPIC FAIL** there.
My problem is I abhor abortion, I don’t think it’s a parasite, but a human growing inside of the woman. HOWEVER I know that human nature is selfish, and the women will do it anyways. I would be beneficial to have it done in a safe clean environment rather than a back alley with rusty hangers. Ultimately it will cost the tax payers more moeny to give these women medical attention, investigate the crime, and prosecute the crime. So I begrudgeoningly for the sake of the women and the country say I’m pro-choice, but only in the first trimester (unless the health of the mother is at risk). However the US needs to revamp the laws then. If it is a WOMAN’s choice then it is her wallet. And stick “The Man had a choice” crap. The woman also had a choice. She made a choice to have unprotected sex and so did the guy. BOOM even keel, so since it’s her body she then is responsible for every choice after that? If the guy can’t make a women terminate or carry to term, then why is he responsible for the child? Seems kinda unfair to me.
Either the last part makes no sense or I’m misunderstanding. A woman chooses to have unprotected sex–she gets pregnant and has to raise the child. Why shouldn’t the man, who also chose not to use protection, not have to deal with the consequences just like the woman does?
And no one should force a woman to have an abortion. It is completely her decision and the fact that you consider it unfair that the man can’t “make a woman terminate” is disgusting.
I think I know what he’s getting at; which is that although the pregnancy is in the woman’s body, the issue affects the man as well, so ethically it shouldn’t be a unilateral decision.
Diss: BINGO!!! She also chose to have unprotected sex, and she chose to have the baby. The man had no say after sex, so how come he’s responsible? If he’s responsible he should have some say in the fate of the baby. You can’t have it both ways, MY BODY MY CHOICE, but he pays for it. Umm excuse me?!?!?
Yeah, I can’t really come up with a workable solution to the problem, but I can see that there’s an inequity.
You said a mouthful, dissim!
Hmm, first of all when a man has sex with any woman at any time he needs to be prepared for the fact that the woman can become pregnant. BC does fail. That is a fact. Also, he is not the only one that has to pay for it, first of all she carries the child in her body at the risk of her own health. But not only that, most women work now to support their children, especially when they are not married so the man is not usually the only one to pay, but he should pay some, at least half.
But I do think he should have more rights to the child and decisions on it’s upbringing. The basic message here is, if you don’t want to raise a child, don’t have sex. Sorry.
@ yikes: Exactly, and as a woman who raised a bunch of kids with no child support after divorce (long story) I recognize that.
But the conundrum here is twofold: Assuming that it was a mutual decision to have sex (taking rape out of the equation), then both parties share responsibility for what happens next. The inequity arises when an unplanned pregnancy occurs and then the decision of whether or not to continue the pregnancy is made unilaterally by the woman. Whether the man desperately wants a child or is dead-set against it, he’s legally bound by what she decides, although if you look at parental responsibility as spanning, say 18 3/4 years, she’s only pregnant for, what, 3 or 4% of that time?
I should explain that better; it’s not only a concern (from my point of view) that the man, at the woman’s sole option, can end up financially responsible for a child he didn’t want; but also that a man who is ready and willing to not only be financially responsible but also to raise a child can unilaterally be denied that if she chooses to terminate. (And sometimes if she has the kid, too, but that’s another whole kettle of fish…)
Diss: Thank you. You said it more eloquently than I did. Bottom line the law gives a woman more control over a man. It’s true the man can prevent this by not having sex, but where does the responibility lie within the woman as well. It is a conundrum that is practially unfixable, however the “My body, my decision” just doens’t seem to fit. If it’s your deciscion than YOU live with it. Not saying that’s how I would react if I had knocked up some betty when I was younger, I’m just saying my knee jerk reaction is “Screw you hippy!!!” I respect any person (father or mother) who is single and raises their child, I know my little one is a handful, and I have a wife helping me.
But my point is, the man should be prepared for that the minute he decides to have sex with a woman… It may seem unfair but a womans body is designed to have children and that possibility is always there, he should decide at that point, that is when he has the power. Once the bun is in the oven, well the power is much less…
That’s why I think it’s a great idea to forgo sex until you are married, btw. Because you circumvent these kinds of problems to start with.
@ yikes: That conclusion assumes that everyone who is married wants to have kids, which isn’t true.
True, but most people who decide to get married, I would hope, would know before hand whether one or the other wanted to have a family. I think the most trouble of the kind we are talking about happens when there is an accident between two people who may not be committed to each other or know nothing about each other. I don’t know how often a woman in a marriage decides to have or terminate a pregnancy against her husbands, probably not that often.
Also – “Bottom line the law gives a woman more control over a man.” – Not really true, not the law, the control is given by God, or nature or whatever you want to call it. It’s the design of things.
If you believe that men shouldn’t be held responsible for bringing up a child, then men shouldn’t get to have a vote on abortion laws. Full stop.
Anyway, the laws that are supposed to ensure that dads help bring up their children aren’t exactly hard and fast. I’m sure I’m not the only one who knows a few deadbeat dads. It’s harder to get out of being a mother than it is to get out of being a father.
It’s very easy to get out of being a mother. There are abortions and there are safe haven laws. But the law can still force a man to be a parent, though it can’t force a woman to be one. Quite a disparity there, which is why C4M (choice for men) exists in the first place. If you’re going to allow abortion then for equality’s sake allow a paper abortion to the man in the first couple months as well.
I meant it’s harder to get out of being a mother once the baby is born.
Not really. Commit a crime.
U.S. Census data from 2005:
12.9 Million = Number of single parents living with their children in 2005.
Of these, 10.4 million are single mothers.
Lets stop making excuses for men who want to have their cake and eat it. Lets educate our young men that sex means family and commitment. That would solve a lot of these problems with women having kids that the men decide that, wait a minute! I don’t want a kid! After the fact. We don’t need to pass anymore laws.
Or the other scenario, where the woman aborts and the man decides he wants it… Duh.
But sex does not necessarily mean family and committment, or even pregnancy a majority of the time, if proper precautions are taken. How about teaching our young men AND women how to avoid unwanted pregnancy instead of expecting them to go against human nature and abstain from intercourse outside of wedlock?
And anyway, marriage doesn’t guarantee that a child will be wanted or that either parent will live up to the responsibilities that parenting entails.
Well, that’s fine but that’s what we are doing now and these are the complaints. So, if we go that way then men can’t complain when a woman gets pregnant and she decides what she is going to do. They can’t have it both ways.
So it’s not a perfect system, but expecting abstinence isn’t any kind of solution.
Why? We aren’t animals, we can control ourselves you know. Especially if the down sides are presented to children at an early age. I wish they had taught that when I was in school…
Yikes, children/teenagers ARE animals in a lot of ways. Pack mentality, basic thought processes, etc, and sometimes, they just want to have sex. Not teaching them how to protect themselves from the inevitable consequences of hormonal teens who are trying to figure out what their bodies and minds do will just make the problem MUCH worse.
Well, the only 100% protection is abstinence, but I have no problem with birth control if that’s what you mean. Also, you just think you have to have sex, you don’t really. You can redirect your energies to something else. Also, there is nothing wrong with wanting to do something, and then NOT doing it. What a concept! Anyway, most kids just think they have to do what everyone else is doing. If there was just someone every now and again that could tell them that they don’t have to, like I wish someone had for me, there would be a lot happier and productive teenagers and then adults in the world.
Deep Thought had it right. Mouth. Full.
Quickly:-
SB is right about men not getting a vote on abortion law, or if we are going to vote we should always vote pro-choice, because we have no right to remove choice from women.
Generally, the people who are saying that protection sometimes fails are correct. One of my cousins fell pregnant whilst on the Pill, because it was rendered ineffective by a low grade infection.
Republican presidents have done some great things, and terrible things for personal freedoms. The same can be said of democrats. Anyone who points at the other side and says “it’s all their fault” is a moron.
I agree with you, I’m a Libertarian so the extreme left pisses me off as much as the extreme right. I would prefer the government just leave me the hell alone unless I need help. I’ll pay my taxes, they provide education, national defense, and social services, and I can live my life however I choose to. Let God judge my life when that day comes.
Snap on your para 2.
PAWS: I think the Steve would like my referee analogy from the other forum on the Religious nut bags. I believe the Government should be like refs at a sporting event. When the game is all done the conversation should not be about them, but how good the game was.
The Steve: I never said that. Every PResident and Every Congress we’ve ever had share blame in the current state of the union. B/C everyone of them had something to do with the laws we have today, and policies we have today, and all of that helped to lead into our debacle. If we lessened Government, I wouldn’t be surporsed if we climbed out of this recession quicker.
If you do a Google on Moderate Republican, you will see that the original party of Lincoln believed exactly what you do. It’s been said before, but I wish to God that the extreme right of the Republican party would go start their own and let us have our’s back.
/have happies.
Don’t worry Eddie, happy, not hippies. We won’t bring them round YOUR porch again, after the pieces I had to clean up last time.
blah this site is confusing. I wanted to reply to Yikes comment “Why? We aren’t animals, we can control ourselves you know. ”
To be fair to other animals, they are actually rather good at controlling themselves. Most animals use intercourse only to have offspring, in many groups the young males, or non alpha males and females can’t have sex at all. Some animals even forgo having sex if the area does not have enough resources. Granted there are problems, when twins are born in some species, one will be chosen to live…and the cuckoo is the most deadbeat parent ever >.> however there are few animals that have sex for pleasure, and humans are one of them. I dunno why but that sort of statement is a pet peeve of mine. Anyway you’re right, on the account that we can do more to stem our sexual urges, masturbation for instance is a safe way to do that. Unfortunately society has a habit of dirtying sex subjects up. so it isn’t simply no sex, it’s no sexual urges whatsoever..and that is really not good.
Actually, most species of ape use sex as a social currency and/or dominance control. One of my cousins just completed a post-doctoral research programme on bonobo chimpanzees.
paws: yeah that’s true, it’s hard to pin down animals, the more intelligent ones are more sexual, but in terms of the entire animal kingdom it isn’t enough to justify an idea that the more animal you are the more likely you’ll have sex.
even with bonobos and dolphins and other animals that do it for more, it’s mostly a practice of making babies.
Wow. Nailin let me guess you’re a Moderate?!?!? (Note sarcasm) Please define Facism for me. What has Obama done in his life to deserve more respect as well?
Anyone who’d actually say (and believe, I assume) that the MSM is “conservative” is either really really stupid or…well, that’s the only option. Not knowing that the 2 biggest “fascists” in history were both hard core left socialists just like her hero proves that beyond a doubt.
I guess when you don’t have, and never will have, “wealth”, you don’t care that some communist wants to redistribute it.
nothing from nothing is still nothing.
The left. is. fascist. Bigtime; far worse than any right-winger could ever dream. The difference is night and day, really – collectivism versus individualism – wherever totalitarianism flourishes, there you have fascism and leftism both. Not conducive to individual liberty – the exact opposite, both.
How is he worthy? He looks good in a suit?! He is incompetent as hell. For every job that the prez is supposed to do, he appoints a czar to do it! The idiot doesn’t do a damn thing on his own! except close Gitmo, appoint people to do his work, take the credit for that work (or direct blame when they screw up) , name the dog, and go back on every campaign promise he ever made.
Isn’t it ironic that our first and hopefully soon to be last communist “president” would have more “czars” than Russia ever did? You people know about Russia, right? That big communist hell hole we were at war with for like…50 years?
Didn’t think so……
No more ironic than listening to people crying that “he’s a leftie because he’s smart enough to do the CEO job properly, and appoint managers to actually do the detail of projects rather than try and do them himself” which is what Dubya did badly, and caused the recession that Obama is trying to cure!
Paws: The problem is he is not following our Countries constitution. We value you that here more than anything. The President here should not run companies, and no he’s not smart enough to run the comapny. Even after throwing BILLIONS of dollars into it, and “owning” it they still declared Bankruptcy. Sorry for Obama that’s an EPIC FAIL!!!
Also the problem with Czars is they have no congressional oversite. Without checks and balances we as Ameircans loose our Freedoms. And GW didn’t cause the recession, greedy banks, self indulged people who felt they were entitled to anything they wanted regardless of cost and their income, and FEAR caused the recession. Obama’s plan to spend to get out of it, seems kind of bad. How to get rid of Credit Card debt, you spend more money!!!!
wait what? you sir/ma’am have been drinking too much right-wing coolaid. Bush is the one that didn’t follow the constitution! in fact he passed a law that can be summed up as “yeah…see this big long document here? The government just has to say the word terrorism and it doesn’t matter anymore” remember the patriot act? And as for the president not running companies, that is why he is appointing people to do it for him. There is a reason one of his titles is Chief Executive (you know, kinda like Chief Executive Officer or CEO), or do you right wing nutjobs not acknowledge any of the titles but Commander in Chief? And Im sorry to break it to you but GW did cause the recession by weakening or abolishing the laws that held up our oh-so-fragile economy. Though I’m glad you aren’t blaming Obama for the recession like everyone else that Faux news has brainwashed.
10th amendment….”Those powers not specifically deligated to the federal government shall be reserved for the states”. Taking over private business because it is “too big to fail” is not a power given to the govt.
You know, firing GM’s boss was something that probably needed to be done, but I’ll admit that I was a bit nervous that Obama was actually able to tell them to can him. Yes, the government gave them gobs of money, but something about that still doesn’t sit well with me. But I’m not the only democrat to feel that way, right? Right???
Don’t see anything in Article I section 9 prohibiting the legislature from passing laws enabling the government to take control of a portion or even all of a business. Do see in Article I section 8 clause 18 granting the right to make all laws necessary and proper. Who determines what is necessary and proper? Could it be the representatives sent to Congress?
ERic: Do you hear the crickets chirping?!?!?!
Proud Demo: Patriot Act was re-radified by a democratic congress (Yawl have been in charge of Congress for 4 years now). No GW did not cause the recession, if you look it’s people who felt entitled to property they had no right owning (whether it be house, cars, computers, clothes, ect) b/c they couldn’t afford it. Actually what’s killing this country is Unions, making it too expensive to build and manufactur things in this country so we need to export that labor so we can import the goods (not a goo philosophy), and who sides with the Unions? I believe that to be Democrats. So Proud, b4 you start slinging mud and calling me a right wing nut job, stop drinking you’re Kool Aid and try and see the whole facts, and nothing but the facts. You see I didn’t blame a party, I blame specific individuals. If you try and put the economy on one man, then be careful, b/c in 2012 when Obama is up for re-election and the economy still sucks, we can Blame him.
A couple of things. First, “czar” is simply a title. It does not mean the same thing as a Russian Czar, just like the “Lieutenant” part of “Lieutenant Governor” is not a military rank.
Second, Obama’s appointing czars is not unique in modern history. Both Bushes and Reagan appointed czars. In fact, every president since Nixon has had czars.
Third, your attempt to equate czars with communism makes no sense. The two were historically on opposite sides. The Bolshevik revolution ousted the czars and created the communist Soviet Union. If anything, the use of the term, “czar,” should be seen as anti-communist.
Sub: Sorry but Obama has more Czars than those PResidents you talked about combined. The problem with Czars is that they work outside the checks and balance system. They are appointed by the PResident with exectutive powers without being Ok’d by congress. The Czar system is a set up for larger government, not quite communism, but definitely larger government. Which in turn will lead America to an Epic Fail.
Notice how ILPB showed up just when Anniee disappeared? Hmmm…..
Naw, his posts don’t have the profanity laden, edge of sanity feel of hers.
ILPB doesn’t have the same level of vitreol, nor the same vocabulary. And he calmed down much too quickly, LOL.
Then maybe they’re tag-teaming us?
And frankly, I am actually enjoying his posts. I may not always agree, but at least he isn’t insulting and does have a sense of humor.
-
Nah, this one is neither Anniee or Dhoti, but probably more like froo or myself.
We’ll all get along fine as soon as you realize I’m God. However for those that don’t believe in God, I’m Allah, Budda, and Xenu…… for you Atheists, I’m Marx, Flew, or Freud.
ILPB is lying. I’M God. Funny thing, actually. A few of my friends actually write in their religion boxes for surveys “Tylerian”.
ILPB, shall we send our minions into a glory-war yet?
Tyler: No we need something better to fight over… I mean we had the Cola Wars, Less Filling Tastes Great, hmmmmmmm we need a good platform to fight against…. what do you stand for again?
We don’t all stand for the same thing? Goodness and love, but in the older books I’m violent and angry and childish!
Oh, and I stand for GLORY IN THE EYES OF ME
and KILL EVERYONE WHO DOESN’T AGREE WITH US.
Does that mean I have to take the Budda stance….. MAN I hate Budda… happy fat man wearing no clothes….. seems like Santa in the Bahamas.
new psych meds finally kicked in?
Yeah, I was somewhat enjoying him myself, although admittedly I’ve only skimmed most of this thread. Also, who doesn’t like peanut butter. But don’t worry Ivan, I loves the heck out of you, we’ll go out for BabyRitas soon, K?
Peanut, you know that’s actually *NOT* how Buddha is portrayed right? That image of him is mostly due to China, where, when it was introduced, he was made “people-friendly” to the people there by associating him with the kitchen god. Weird, right?
Anyway, I’ll take Buddha and the Shaolin Monks if you want.
You can have England.
ILPB – You’re Xena? Doesn’t that make you a woman?
Tyler: I don’t want England it rains too much. Plus they have bad teeth (go nationalized Health Care). I’ll take Brazil.. hmmm Brazilian jinjitsu (I know sp). Or CarniVAL!!!
Paws: That’s Xenu, I couldn’t exclude the scientologists could I?
Good. I get the knights. You can have the overzealous ones. Now. So my people get enlightenment and yours get lightning, right?
“Sorry but Obama has more Czars than those PResidents you talked about combined.”
So a few czars are okay? You’re either against czars or for them.
“The problem with Czars is that they work outside the checks and balance system. They are appointed by the PResident with exectutive powers without being Ok’d by congress.”
Every president we’ve had has made decisions that are “outside the checks and balance system.” Not every executive decision has to be approved by Congress, and that’s the way it should be, otherwise Congress wouldn’t have time to do anything except approve or disapprove every decision made by the President and/or the President’s Cabinet. If the President makes a bad decision, we can always elect someone else next time, and if the decision is bad enough, Congress can impeach him/her.
“The Czar system is a set up for larger government, not quite communism, but definitely larger government.”
I don’t understand why you keep trying to equate the size of the government with communism. Communism concerns the ownership of property, regardless of the size of the government.
He does look good in a suit though, you must admit.
Meow.
Actually, Shannon, he’s keeping his campaign promises, especially about the global warming legislation and other things that should scare you sh!tless. Go back and listen (or read) what he actually said during the campaign. Go to politifact DOT org and read the Obameter, which tracks his promises and whether he’s kept them. You should be scared, especially of the global warming stuff he’s wanting passed.
What’s scary about it? Honest question. Not trying to start shit.
The fact that the entire country will be subject to California building codes if this passes for one thing. The way I understand it, if you’re going to sell your house and it doesn’t meet this environmental code, you can’t sell until you put a LOT of money into the upgrades. I’m not saying the upgrades aren’t a good thing, but it’s going to drive the price of houses up and penalize people for not having the money to sink into brand new storm windows, rated appliances, certain types of water heaters, and other green “fixes”, including solar generated electricity. Now, new houses that are specifically built to this code I have no problem with, because they really do save the owner money in the long run. But expecting people to retrofit houses to slide inside a little green box is taking away the rights of the homeowner. Before this was an issue between the homebuyer and the seller. Now it’s going to be government mandated? Surely I’m not the only one who has a problem with this…….
-
Taking over healthcare scares me too, but for other reasons.
yeah that does sound rather bothersome if it is mandated to more than new housing. :<
“Here. Hold my beer.”
You’re electirc bill will go up about 200%. Not really kidding. Gas will become European pricing, and worse the car industry will take another hit, which we see it can ill afford. Obama is trying too much. He should worry about economy, and once that gets better do Health Care or his Greean Act, but trying it all at once will cost Tax Payers too much money, causing them to cinch their belts, and def NOT help the recession.
And what I was talking about with him keeping campaign promises deals with exactly that, PB. He SAID that electricity rates will “necessarily skyrocket”, and that he intends to tax coal companies (which are our main source of electricity) out of production with “green” taxes. He SAID during the campaign that he will jack up rates, and that the cap and trade will cause costs to be passed on to consumers. He is doing this to force people to be greener.
Nah he’s doing it to get around his promise not to tax those making less than $250K. It’s eay to back pedal and say “I meant direct taxes, like income.” Also if he truely wanted to be green he wouldn’t fly to NYC for “date night”, he wouldn’t keep the Oval Office at 78 or 80 degrees in the winter like he did, and he wouldn’t fly to Phoenix to sign a stimulous bill when his office is right there.
Oh please don’t get me started on “date night”. *sigh*
I have to admit, though, if I were President, I think I’d probably do a lot of “OMG, I’ve got my own freakin’ plane to fly wherever I want!!” the first few months myself. I’d probably also get a kick out of being able to call down to the kitchen at 3 am to order a grilled cheese sandwich and a hot fudge sundae.
It’s human. Not terribly presidential or responsible, but definitely human…
>.> Diss, just *one* grilled cheese and sundae?
@Tyler: Good point, I’d better order something for the First Husband, too.
I was actually thinking that’s not NEARLY enough food to fill one up. Two/three of each? Probably.
I understand the compulsion to just go nuts, hell, I’d probably do it too! But for me it’s a case of preaching and not doing. He wants us to use a certain type of light bulb, and not drive too many miles, and pay $4.00 for gas, and all of these other green things that are supposed to help out, and he can’t be bothered to even attempt them himself? It’s the mentality of “The Boy King” that gets me. Whether he thinks that or not about himself, it appears that way, and everyone knows that appearances kill, especially for the new “rock star” president. It hasn’t been unnoticed, according to Rassmussen, which is the only saving grace. His approval numbers aren’t really any better than Bush’s were at the same point in his presidency, and for the first time he has negative approval numbers.
@ Tyler: Clearly I’m not a teenage boy. That’d be plenty for me!
@ Froo: Yes, the hypocrisy of it IS annoying.
Cite.
I dont’ know about the 200% thing, but energy prices will skyrocket according to the president during his own campaign, and according to this article from the Wall Street Journal.
That’s an opinion piece.
He also promised it would bankrupt the coal industry. Would you like the audio, SB? There it is, link.
Also as promised during the campaign: Link. Odd, he usually never says the same thing twice.
{http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/05/18/the-waxman-markey-climate-legislation}
Here’s another one, Blonde. I know, I know, it’s from gopDOTgov, but I’m still looking around for other cites for you. Whaddya know, no left wing sites have any alternative data for this thing
Blonde, this UPI article doesn’t deal with numbers, but I think the statement about “Let’s hurry up and vote on this before anyone has time to read it” is VERY telling.
{http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/26/Business-group-opposes-climate-change-bill/UPI-72311246068864/}
Here’s the VIDEO, Suicide Blonde. Funny, how it’s only the conservative-leaning or moderate sites who have these quotes – the MSM seems to have forgotten all about them. I’m sure it’s just an oversight, not a bias or anything.
I don’t even understand why it’s an issue when the very barest of common sense will tell you that cap and trade will absolutely cause electricity and other energy bills to skyrocket…for everyone. This is common sense, econ -101 for the grammar school – how could it mean anything BUT? I certainly hope we’re only debating whether or not he SAID it ahead of time (which I just posted the video of) and not the fact that this is the obvious and only possible outcome of such a policy.
Ok, Blonde, I found a good one! It seems to be non-partisan, but I’ll let you make that call.
-
{http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m4d30-Study-shows-Obama-climate-change-bill-would-cost-money-and-jobs?cid=exrss-Denver-Weather-Examiner}
-
Anniee, I don’t need your help, nor your condescending tone toward Suicide Blonde. She is asking a legitimate question to which she wants the answer. Thank you though.
I don’t recall addressing you at all, froo. I’m sorry if you’ve misconstrued this as being directed at you but in fact I’m speaking directly to SB. And the condescension she’s earned herself.
Blonde, I found an article from redandgreenandblue that details some of the plan. I personally think the last line is the kicker.
-
{http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/06/23/cbo-waxman-markey-climate-bill-to-cost-just-175household/}
Besides, while you were flailing about trying to appease the unappeasable by finding an “acceptable source” I produced the whole freaking video from the horse’s mouth LOL. And I have to think that’s pretty funny – in a quirky, ironic way of course.
If you’ll notice, I said my piece a LOOOOOOONG time ago about Obama’s campaign promises. The links I’m providing are simply about the bill that passed the House the other day and the possible economic impact. That was the issue at hand here, not campaign promises. I’m also trying to get completely non-partisan sites so that both sides have something to read, and to get cites from a wide spectrum of sources so that there is something for everyone. There is no harm or shame in that, and I’m learning all kinds of things along the way.
So who’s stopping you? Have at it. It was you who were trying to silence me, not the other way around.
Though I’m pretty disgusted to hear that we were in fact debating something so patently obvious – an excercise in absurdity. We know he said it, and we know it’s easy to prove that – but someone MIGHT have missed that fact and need it pointed out. That anyone would wonder, “Hmm, could this make prices go up?” just tells me Idiocracy was a documentary. So there you go.
An interesting footnote in the report by the Center on Budget and policy Priorities: “The assumption of unchanged macroeconomic conditions that CBO uses in its cost estimates implies that increased
government costs for higher-priced, energy-intensive spending will be offset by lower costs for lower-priced, nonenergy-
intensive spending, so that the entire net impact on the federal budget comes from the loss of income and payroll
tax revenue. If, however, the overall level of prices in the economy rises, then the reduction in income and payroll tax
revenues will be smaller, but the government will incur increased costs in other areas, such as for higher cost-of-living
adjustments in Social Security and other programs”
Tyler thinketh all the gorgeous women on PK need to break it up for a few moments and take it easy. O.O
He is starting to become worried.
To put this in stark relief here before I get back to work – (have to catch up – I leave tomorrow for the DC tea party) – there was a reason Obama deflected criticism by IMMEDIATELY, without any preliminaries, mentioning the fact that it would bankrupt certain industries and make electricity and other energy prices skyrocket. He HAD to say it immediately so he could explain why it was necessary anyway. Why? BECAUSE IT’S SO F*CKING OBVIOUS. The FIRST thing anyone’s going to ask when faced with such a monstrous plan is, “Omg, that’s going to cost us all a FORTUNE!” and he had no choice but to say “Well, yeah, but…” and explain why that didn’t matter. Why the economy, the business, and the individual consumer/producer did not matter in that equation. It’s disgusting that they don’t even teach the bare bones of economics in school anymore, or common sense/logic, because with a shred of common sense or logic you wouldn’t even need economics to figure that one out.
-Sighs and bangs head against the wall- Can we take a break YET?
I told you I have to get back to work Tyler. Consider it broke.
Despite being on a break from school this week and not really feeling like addressing the seven different sources posted here, in the spirit of debate I have gone through and addressed all of them.
1. Link 1, Anniee: not surprisingly, you and I have such diametrically opposed perceptions of the world that we can listen/read/watch the same news and come away with two completely different views, a fact for which I am deeply grateful. With regard to the Obama’s comments on cap and trade from the SF Chronicle, you listen and come away believing that these new laws will cause industry to collapse, energy prices for the average homeowner to skyrocket beyond affordability, the sky to fall, etc. I hear progress. Here is an analogy. Several years ago, the European Union performed a cost analysis on the economic impact of illnesses caused by toxic chemicals leaching into the environment from computer waste. Because the EU socializes healthcare, the study showed that it would be more costly to treat the illnesses caused by these chemicals than it would be to ban such toxins, and enforced a ban on the toxins, forcing industry to come up with safer alternatives. Naturally, the computer technology industry was up in arms, claiming that the demands were impossible to meet, and that industry would collapse and jobs would be lost and the sky would fall. The EU stood firm. The technology industry found safer alternatives. The sky did not fall. I believe that Americans are resourceful, and we will find a way to make coal cleaner or replace it as an energy source. I believe that this is something we MUST do, that it is not an option.
2. Link 2, Anniee: From the Ada, Oklahoma Evening News. Anniee, were you aware that Ada, Oklahoma is in Coal County ? Need I say more?
3. Link 3, Froo – This piece is from the House Republican Conference policy brief. Sorry, not credible due to bias. I recently wrote a research paper on the economic impact of illegal immigration on California’s economy. Sources such as this one would have been deemed unallowable, and rightly so.
4. Link 4, Froo – if your main concern is that bills are being passed without enough time given to read them or access provided to Republicans, you should do a little research on the 109th congress. I will link an opinion piece on the subject because of the author’s humorous approach, understanding completely that this is an opinion piece and not a source – however, if you look up the statistics he provides you will find them accurate. His tone is just a bonus. Plus I have a big crush him (author Matt Taibbi)
5. Link 5, Anniee – I believe I’ve addressed this above. Perhaps the “MSM,” having completely exploited that piece back in 2006, has moved on to greener pastures.
6. Link 6, Froo – The source study for this article was performed by CRA International, “a leading global consulting firm that has provided economic, financial, strategy and business management advice to public and private sector clients since 1965.” Studies performed by business strategists are also inadmissible. Such studies will fail to measure cost of implementing cap and trade versus cost of allowing coal pollution to continue unchecked.
7. And finally, link 7, Froo – the last line which concerns you: “[Rep. Camp (R-Mich)] says that [Obama’s plan for energy] would amount to a tax is in direct violation of the President Obama’s pledge that families making less than $250,000 would not pay higher taxes.” Again, this must come down to a simple divergence of perspective. When Obama said he would not raised taxes on families making less than $250K, I did not hear that the costs of certain resources would not go up; apparently, that’s what you heard.
Even Obama, who is obviously NOT versed in or at least doesn’t care about free market economics – that is Austrian and monetarist economics, knows that prices will *necessarily* skyrocket. There is no other possible outcome – and as I say, you don’t really even need econ 101 to see this, but it certainly helps. Fortunately I’m way past econ 101 and I know the predictive power of the Austrian market school – hasn’t failed yet. All that remains is to enact it and watch the devastation – the inevitable devastation – occur. Although you seem not to understand what cap and trade actually IS, which is not surprising. It is not analagous to what you compared it to, making your comparison worthless. It is a massive power grab and a massive takeover of the economic sphere by the federal government. It’s unconstitutional in the extreme, but even if it weren’t, it’s an economy destroyer, without a shadow of a doubt. I can’t say I’ll be happy to say “Duh, I told you” because equal poverty for all is not my idea of a win – but I do hope we can manage to stop this monstrosity from going through and thus stave off the most devastating effects of it. Not sure why you think the country you cited has a thriving and growing economy – heh – but hey, like you say, you come away from any piece of information with the exact opposite idea from someone else and you can’t both be right – generally you’re wrong. And…well, yeah, stupid.
Before you start whinging about my use of the word “stupid” I don’t consider it any more inflammatory than the “sky is falling” crack, which is specifically designed to make me appear stupid, an hysteric, in a panic, etc. Very exact choice of words, that, which is why I feel no compunction using “stupid.”
Anniee, I am not in the least bothered by your opinion of me. I take our disagreements as a sign that I’m doing something right. Of course, maybe I would share your views if I developed my worldview on the Ada Evening News.
SB – just because you THINK I’m wrong doesn’t mean that I am objectively wrong. Might do well to think outside that little teeny box you have for a minute. And get serious – in looking up sources for OBAMA’S OWN ASSURANCE (both during the campaign and now) that prices will NECESSARILY skyrocket, that was one single f*cking source that came up. I also provided the video. Your own guy says it, so maybe you ought to argue with him why it’s not true LOL.
*chants*
CAGE MATCH! CAGE MATCH! CAGE MATCH! CAGE MATCH!
*dons beer sippie hat*
Anniee, just because you THINK I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m objectively wrong. You might do well to practice what you preach.
Prices will skyrocket if the coal industry doesn’t come up with a cleaner way to produce energy. There are better ways to produce energy than the ways we are currently doing the job, and I’m confident we’ll find those ways, especially if our industry is put under pressure to perform to a higher standard.
Take it easy, Chicken Little.
You actually believe this is about only coal? You really don’t know ANYTHING about this bill, do you? Do you have any idea what emits C02 – except everything and everyone (minus plants) that is? Holy hell. Well, I guess it’s only fair that you don’t know because no one does – it’s not like anyone read it before they voted yes. Oh you might check out the evaluation and the bribes contained in the 300 page amendment/bribe that was thrown in the hopper at 3 AM on Friday, too. That was a dandy.
Plus your assertion? That it will only happen “if” (not *while*) they try to find that which can’t be found, your continued belief that this doesn’t put a cap on *everything* which of absolute necessity halts any further progress being made – well it’s so stunningly dumb I really don’t know what to say. Must be nice to live in a land of lollipops, rainbows and unicorn fart-powered cars. The poor rest of us are stuck with reality.
cluck cluck cluck
Wow, great substitute for reason – just clucks and unicorn farts!
So tell me, is Obama, who has stated time and again that skyrocketing prices WILL be the result of this cap and trade (the most restrictive in the world, in his words) a Chicken Little or isn’t he? I’m just curious what you think of him; he was the Messiah, after all.
I think that the Obama administration is facing the hard facts that the way America produces and consumes energy is unsustainable. I think they are putting policies into action to help address the environmental crisis that we find ourselves in. I think that Big Business and Big Industry doesn’t change unless they have to, and now they will have to.
By the way, you’re the one who believes in a Messiah, not this girl
Can’t… help… myself….. must… not…. link…. BRRRAAAACK!!!
I actually had a lot of fun playing that game, Deep Thought – the part where you jump on pregnant women’s bellies as Stewie and these green babies come out was hilarious. Admittedly the Brian levels were really frustrating, but all in all for a simplistic game it was fun. Beating the chicken was really hard
You’re full of self-deprecating win today, Anniee!
Good on ya’.
*goes off to find game to play*
good point, i stand corrected. (freakin’ shame though!)
Mainstream media , conservative? And this would be why more of those who work in the mainstream media SELF IDENTIFY as liberal democrats?
Excuse me, what planet are you from?
We are from the planet Punkitchadonia, where are YOU from?
Wrong, its that the the crazy right side is going further and further to the right, leaving anything moderate right, far to the left of them.
“TV news in general is right-of-center”
Hands-down – stop the internet, stop the site; we have a clear and forever winner for the DUMBEST thing ever said on Pundit Kitchen. Congratulations Paul, you win a dunce cap and two tickets to sunny Chernobyl. The cap goes on your head.
^^^
That.
Oops.
*switches hats*
^^^
That.
Fox leans right and has a mission to support Corporatists through false witness.
1. The base of the GOP consists primarily of Corporatists.
2. The GOP since the mid-20th century has governed via lies and fear-mongering
3. The GOP has adopted FOX as their media arm.
Therefore, Fox News broadcasts lies all day and will continue to criticize our President.
MSNBC leans left.
CNN is the only balanced large news network.
If you hate hearing “We love Obama” all day, just listen to MSNBC a little longer. They will give you the negative coverage you desire as Obama, though liberal, is not as left as most Progressives want.
Instead of tearing down the country by bashing the President elected by the majority of American voters, I encourage you to put away your hate and help improve things.
Sometimes I wish this country could be like a company where we could FIRE those who do nothing but tear us down.
What a hypocrite
“Instead of tearing down the country by bashing the President elected by the majority of American voters, I encourage you to put away your hate and help improve things.”
Oh, God, if I could only turn back the clock – a year, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight – do you know how long people said this to you people, all of it? I wasn’t the biggest Bush fan (he certainly wasn’t a fiscal conservative) but you people were insane. And now y’all have the gall to say this? Forget it. I mean seriously, forget it.
But the same thing was said when Nixon was elected. When Johnson was elected, even when Clinton was elected. As long as there is someone in office that people don’t like, there will always be contention.
point out a lie that Fox News has stated… please, I’ll wait!
I’ve been watching Fox News for 4 yrs now, they are the ONLY News organization that truly gives both sides of the story.
How about this? {link}
Or this…{link}
Or this… {Link}
PK eats all my posts…
Google “Norml Reefer Madness” – The first link will be the Norml website pointing out all the lies in a recent Fox News report. The report conflicts with the sources that Fox themselves cited.
wow, mediadoesn’tmatter and the huffingpaint post, now there’s some unbiased “sources’. If (when) we get nuked and the fake “president” does NOTHING, they’ll be cheering right along with all our other enemies. Oh shit, Fox said bad things about a group of unemployed potheads and there’s O’Reilly on letterman, the guy who makes “jokes” about 14 yos getting raped, you guys sure do prove our point.
You’re talking about Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter, yes? Come on, I don’t even live in the same nation as you, and I still know you’re misquoting him out of context to make that claim!
Paws: No_Mo_Bama is misquoting him to a point. Letterman was a tool when he joked about Palin’s daughter getting knocked up by A-Rod during the 7th inning stretch. He probably meant Bristol, however he didn’t do enough research and realize that the daughter who was with her was her 14 year old. So through sheer stupidity he made a joke about the 14 year old getting knocked up by A-Rod. Not that classy, and frankly even if it was about Bristol still not all that classy. I have no problems making fun of the Politicians themselves, however I prefer leaving familiy’s alone. I wouldn’t make fun of Obama’s daughters or his wife. I did not like the rightest media making fun of Chelsea either. Wasn’t it Obama who said let’s leave families out of it, wouldn’t you think Letterman would follow the advice of the PResident he backed?
Thanks for that; I’d misunderstood what Letterman had said by implication, but not what he meant.
Incidentally, I agree with Obama about keeping family (well except individual members who make a genuinely free choice to get involved, so no under-18s) out of it.
I agree 100%. I acutally think you should leave wives out of it unless they try and take the spot light. Since Obama’s wife, I have to admit, has been pretty low key I can not find insult with her yet. (I won’t even get on the cardigan band wagon, not worth it). I abhor people who go after families to attack someone, it’s low and actually pretty sad. Both sides do it, and I think it’s a sign of immaturity. But that’s just me, and I’m a humble moderate conservative.
I think the only “point” is on the top of NO_MO_BAMA’S head.
Ad Hominum….typical liberal response
Yeah, ‘cos all liberals are morons, right? We have no redeeming qualities, right? I’m sick of these kinds of attitudes. It’s making coming here really irritating lately. I don’t have the strength for this crap today.
Then why not go after Nailin for adding nothing to the debate, instead of in the know for calling him out on it?
1. I had just had a crappy job interview and I was in a bad mood.
2. No Mo Bama is a troll, plain and simple. I don’t advocate treating trolls with respect. So Nailin can fire at will as far as I’m concerned.
3. There has been a lot of snarky, nasty right wing comments lately, and it’s getting annoying.
4. Even if I thought Nailin was wrong, two wrongs don’t make a right, and it’s NOT a typical liberal response to respond childishly. That’s not fair. It’s a typical response to a troll to make a smart assed comment though.
5. I like to make numbered lists.
Regarding #3, I think there’s been a lot of snarky, nasty comments from both right AND left lately, but that may just be my perception.
Sorry your job interview sucked, Eric.
It might be perception, I’ll give you that. I tend to just glaze over the snarky drive bys from the left too. They tend to annoy me, though, to be honest. They make us on the left look bad too.
And it wasn’t a total loss. There’s at least a remote chance I’ll get a call back.
You realize you encourage that kind of behavior when you turn a blind eye to the left-wing trolls, right? Don’t act surprised when it comes back to bite you.
There’s a foreign policy lesson in there somewhere, too…
I can’t go after every troll, Dhoti. I’m just one man. I’m no hero. However, in my defense, I was one of the many ripping into that Again troll. And Nailin was right about NO_MO_BAMA. I think we can all say that jerk is a troll that hopefully nobody wants to be associated with.
Yeah, Eric usually gives me the liberal trolls to fight.
And since we’re only two guys, Jane and Froo help restrain Again. Because that guy is one HELL of a tough nutjob to pin down to one opinion.
So Eric, do we need a rotation shift or can you hold them off there a little longer?
Eric, Dhoti does have a point. There are multiple instances of Liberals on this baord calling conservatives idoits (see Jocelyn). We need to call it out for EVERYONE. Remember how friendly we wer when raging against those retarded religious freaks?
Go ahead. But don’t hold your tongue when the next one just happens not to be.
That’s the problem with debating. Someone who has political beliefs that are different than and make to sense to another would be thought an idiot. Is it really possible to argue with someone and disagree with nearly everything they believe, as well as their reasons for believing it, and not think they’re an idiot?
And Dhoti, what exactly is your political leaning?
Sure it is — it’s called respectful disagreement. If you can’t do it, then you’re not really debating.
I can argue with someone respectfully. But I have NO love for the trolls. Now, I have no problem discussing things with Froo even though I quite clearly disagree with her on quite a bit of stuff. However, when we don’t fight and can just discuss things rationally, we all sometimes find common ground.
It looks like Igloo’s saying, “if I disagree with someone too much, I think they’re an idiot, and I call out idiots”, and that’s not at all mature.
Yeah, I agree with you, Dhoti. That does look like it’s what Igloo is saying, and I disagree with him.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that respectfully disagreeing with people like No_mo_bama is impossible for me.
Oh, well I’ll give you that one. That guy was a total jackass. I thought we were talking about disagreeing in general.
Agreed, Eric. There’s far too much ridiculous, uncited, completely illogical and false mud being slung today for my tastes.
have you noticed there are VERY few of the “regulars” around? it turns into sh!tstorms like this when it’s a bunch of visitors. most of the regulars have enough respect of one another to behave a little bit better than this. we may not LIKE or AGREE with one another but it doesn’t resort to
“you’re an idiot”
“no you are”
“no YOU are”
“i know you are but what am i?” sort of crap.
That and the political leanings of Fox news and the rest of the mainstream media have been hashed out so many times I can practically recited the arguments by heart. At the end of the day people who like Fox news will still like it and people who don’t, won’t. No one’s winning anything here. I’m mostly scanning to see if any of the people I like say anything interesting.
Yeah, I seem to be doing that most of the time these days. Lots and lots and lots of scanning. Especially for the wall o’text posts.
Apparently I haven’t scored a point yet.
I comment a little more later on. I may not have replied to one of your comments, but I probably got into a thread because you and some other people who have interesting things to say were talking down there.
Hey you forgot your plug…….. so I can today’s plug has been brought to you be “That Freaking Moron” over there…
Hey I learned my lesson. I stopped flinging mud. I even called No_Mo_Bama out. I just think Nailin and NMB are the same except different ideal spectrums. So wrapped up in themselves they can’t see that Tyler is baking cookies for everyone (hint hint hint)
*peanut* butter cookies?
Oatmeal peanut-butter chocolate chip cookies? *sniffs air hopefully*
Remember I hate peanut butter.
how can anyone hate peanut butter? it’s ambrosia, or at least the good brands are.
Haha – THOSE are SOURCES? Oh we really are in trouble. Might as well cite the Washington ComPost or the New York Slimes. At least I have some new funny names for alleged “sources.” And Media Matters lies for a fact – they still have up phony information from Molly Ivins’ fake version of events on Rush Limbaugh’s show from 1992 – real reliable source there – not.
In days when Pravda is as good a source as any, and the best we really do have is Fox or pundits and blogs (i.e. now) we’re in trouble. Except we’ve known we were in trouble since the Magic Negro reared his head.
New York Slimes and Washington ComPost? You are so clever.
And really, you are going to start throwing around terms like “Magic Negro?” That’s just disgusting.
Um, not to throw my hat in here *throws in hat anyway*, that particular term was coined by a left-wing blogger and continued by Al Sharpton to refer to Barack Obama and his “lack of blackness”. The rest of your post is spot on.
A *black* left-wing opinion piece writer. And if Sharpton used it that way, it wasn’t the intent – the intent was to throw liberal white guilt into relief, making it seem that even his white supporters did it out of condescension and racism. Everything white people do or say or think is racist.
Sharpton actually directly questioned whether Obama was “black enough” to sympathize with the average black man. He was not being flattering with the term. Of course, this was extremely early in the race, and the thought was discarded when Obama became the candidate of choice.
I’m well aware of the Sharpton quote – whether or not Obama was “authentic” enough because he didn’t have enough slave blood (though his wife did) – which has little to do with the Magic Negro column or its meaning. Sharpton is his own kind of wacko.
Do I get my own whacko category too, Anniee? -flutters eyelashes-
And the award for amazing use of tag teaming on one lol goes to Anniee and Froo!
*claps*
I knew I agreed with you but I couldn’t even keep up with it all!
Well played.
I think Sharpton was ripping off the term magical negro, which is a stock character in books, movies, etc. It usually shows up with unfortunate implications, because even though the character is a stereotype, s/he can do stuff! Basically they don’t want to try to flesh out a character but don’t want to appear racist. [linkylinky]
Dam* it! And gaining your respect was at the top of my to-do list today – one of my main goals in life, in fact. Let me try again – if I said Miraculous Mulatto instead, would you forgive me?
What other news channel is right leaning?! The only lie is when progressive people accuse Fox of lying.
I like how you use progressive as a derogatory term.
a: of, relating to, or characterized by progress b: making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c: of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
Yep, silence the self expression, close our minds to new ideas, and continue along in our tired old ways. That isn’t the way America was founded, it isn’t the way we triggered the industrial revolution, it isn’t the way we put a man on the moon, and it is NOT the answer now.
If you’re going to cite the dictionary, at least pick the correct definition:
Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.
Progressivism wasn’t around during the American Revolution. The Industrial Revolution was well underway in Great Britain before we ever showed up. (Really? That one’s just egregious.) And Johnson was busy killing progressivism during Project Apollo.
History 101…
Superior Dhoti is superior.
Clearly you being wrong makes me the bad person.
One of the few times I’ll side with you, Dhoti. When you get pointed out that you’re wrong, Steve, don’t be sarcastic. It’s a lame defense used by incompetents who can’t stand on their own two feet. Grow a backbone.
Ok. I look like an idiot. I am now highly annoyed with the english language or whoever named that political movement progressivism because it sounds pretty much not progressive at all. *grumbles* Stupid root word misleading me, to think I got an A in English 111.
Crap.
Pwned Steve is pwned….and contrite.
WHy not? Progressive, in the political sense, IS a bad word. Why shouldn’t it be used as such?
I think he eventually caught himself and realized that progressive politics aren’t really all that progressive. (Kind of like how “Know-Nothing” doesn’t mean “I’m shedding bias and starting from first principles” but rather “damn, I hate me some Catholics”.)
Progressive is negative? That’s subjective.
Only in the sense that life under a progressive government gets progressively worse for the individual (and progressively better for those who have power in the state.) I can be progressively choked to the point that I die, but I prefer not to.
I can progressively grow until I can fly, but darned physics won’t let me.
Loose some weight by hollowing out your bones, then strap the wings to your arms, not your back. Oh and go to the moon, less gravity.
Not channels, but the outlets are few enough to name, WSJ, IBD, Washington Times and a few radio networks.
“What other news channel is right leaning?!”
None. The rest lean hard left.
that’s sad that you think like that.
“there are plenty of right-leaning news outlets”
Outside radio? Hehe. Bwahahah. All news is editorialized (i.e. spun – which you refer to as lies.) None of it should be called “news.”
fact
Here okay FOX: Election Controversy
Others: OBAMA GOTS A PUPPIE!
relly?
The understatement of the century…
if you put it in fine print
Yeah, Fox lies… Kinda like this????
The Washington Post’s free commuter tabloid “Express” earned its name on Tuesday. On page 8, its timeline of “Turning Points: Key Dates in the Iraq War” was so quickly assembled that it left out the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein. It began by noting the invasion as a “bid to topple” Saddam, but never noted U.S. troops taking Baghdad on April 9, 2003. However, it did emphasize U.N. estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths, and abuse at Abu Ghraib. Here’s the complete actual verbiage:
March 2003: U.S.-led invasion begins with strikes on Baghdad in bid to topple Saddam Hussein.
April 2004: Photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison released.
Jan. 2005: Millions vote in first multiparty poll in 50 years.
Jan. 2007: President George W. Bush announces troop “surge.” U.N. reports 34,000 civilians died in 2006.
July 2008: As violent deaths decrease, Iraqi P.M. Nouri al-Maliki raises prospect of U.S. troop withdrawal.
This is the Washington Posts idea of truth telling for the Iraqi time line.
Notice anything missing?
STFU and stop the attempts to BS your way through a “Liberal” media propaganda machine BS. They didn’t call CNN the Clinton News Network for nothing.
Good gods are Amerikans this friggen stupid? To answer my own question… yes, yes they are.
That time line could suggest a bias, yes, but it could also be several other things. More importantly though, there are no lies in there.
You complain that it doesn’t mention the major achievements of the war, but fail to see that the multiparty vote really is the most significant event. Removing Saddam Hussein wasn’t really a great triumph, his own people probably would have done that eventually, but preventing the power from falling directly to his family members and getting a close approximation of a democratic process is an enormous achievement.
I didn’t see the context of the article, but it could well have been ‘what are the most significant events that have led to the current situation, instability, and uncertainty in Iraq?’ If that was what the timeline was trying to achieve then the capture of Hussein wasn’t a significant contributor in either direction, but the Abu Ghraib prison photos were.
Yes, everyone and everything has some kind of bias, we all know that. We all also know that you can quote anything out of context to try and prove a case.
From what I have seen of Fox News, they seem to completely ignore any counter-arguments or facts that get in the way of them pursuing their own agenda. Unfortunately they are a major news outlet and millions of people trust the network to report facts. It’s amazing that they can get away with outright lies, but that’s freedom of speech for you. Freedom without responsibility causes all kinds of problems, so biased reporting will continue to be endemic in American media.
Minor point: leaving out important facts especially by a major news source may be perceived as a lie in some cases.
As can deliberately introducing information which is ostensibly related to the story reported, but which proves on further examination to be completely irrelevant.
Wow, that’s pretty vague.
Example – an Iranian Airways Airbus crashed a few years ago.
BBC reports the crash, and then spends half the report talking about the poor safety record of Tupolev and Yakolev airliners. As the Russian airliners had a poor record irrespective of operator, which strongly suggests design and/or assembly flaws, not just poor maintenance, I don’t see the relevance of the second part of the story to the first.
More so since Airbuses don’t have a particularly poor safety record in Iranian service compared with other operators.
Wow….totally the same as the NYT reporting that a majority of Americans support socialized healthcare. Then putting the actual polling data in small print showing that a significant majority of those polled either voted for OsamaObama, Ralph Nader or other 3rd party leftist candidates. Yep. Sorry to rain on your Moral equivalencey. Your logic is serioulsy flawed…fallicious in fact. DUH
Wait…so people who favor universal health care (a majority), are the same people who voted for a candidate who’s platform included universal health care?
Funny how it’s still a majority of the American people regardless who they voted for.
Of course people against universal health care wouldn’t vote for Obama, that’s just common fu(king sense. It doesn’t change the fact that the same majority of the population that voted Obama DOES favor universal health care.
This is America. The majority rules, even if you’re not part of the majority. Get used to it.
The Steve: Actually people tend to vote on more than one issue. And I would say quite a few people who voted for Obama didn’t vote for his Health Care. A lot of the last election wasn’t about Policy. The Democrats could have put a Moose up for election and it would have won. The American people were tired of how the Republicans ran things (not that great I admit b/c they got away from their ideals and caved to the Christian right). Second this was an historic event, the chance to elect the First Black President. Some people who voted for Obama were simply voting for that fact, if you put a white candidate with no experience and limited history to base policies off of, Hiliary would have killed him (aka John Edwards) in the primaries. Third people wante dus out of Iraq, Obama promised that.
People vote on many issues and to say they voted on just Universal Health Care is somewhat ignorant. *Fail*
Oh and your last sentence. That’s the attitude that lost the White House and Congress for the Republicans, soooo **EPIC FAIL**
“The Democrats could have put a Moose up for election and it would have won.”
Actually, Sarah Palin would’ve killed it from her chopper before you could say, “You betcha.”
Alright then the Skunk woulda taken over. No one hunts skunks except for Red Nekcs in pick ‘um up trucks, and she’s a Red Neck in a Chopper!!!
Remember, folks, just because you’re governor doesn’t mean you stop being a redneck. And to be bipartisan, that goes for Bill Clinton too.
“in the know” above asserted that a majority of the people who support universal health care are also Obama supporters.
So either:
1. He believes those people’s opinions shouldn’t matter, which is his way of discounting the majority support for health care
2. He doesn’t realize that liberals support social programs like health care, and as such is somehow surprised to realize that the majority of people who support it are also in support of left leaning candidates
“I Like Peanut butter” – I agree with you. Of course people vote on more than one issue, but anyone who is staunchly against universal health care wouldn’t vote for Obama any more than a hardcore pro-life voter would. Common Fu(king sense, as I mentioned above.
As for YOUR last comment “That’s the attitude that lost the White House and Congress for the Republicans”….
You must be a politician if you think the most important thing is having your party in control and “winning”.
I don’t care which party is in control as long as the will of the people is honored. If the country changes it’s mind next election and decides to vote Republican, then so be it. Would you rather have had the election fixed so your candidate won, ignoring the will of the people and undermining democracy?
It’s interesting that your definition of “Common Fu(king sense” just so happens to divorce your preferred government program from the will of the people. Quite a coincidence, don’t you think?
I must be too stupid to understand what you’re trying to say here Dhoti. I just see a string of great vocabulary words that I understand on their own but don’t understand in that context. I applaud your knowledge of the English language, but sometimes using it to it’s fullest is not conducive to getting your point across to the average Joe.
Common sense = left leaning voters voting for leftist policies
For the record – I’m not in favor of universal health care (with the possible exception of children). I am in favor of the government regulating health care costs by limiting liability and reducing malpractice claims and bogus court cases by gold digging douche-bags that drive the cost of healthcare up for everyone. I also think that hospitals should have to disclose pricing, and that it should be the same for everyone regardless of insurance status, race, etc. An insured patient should not pay more or less than an uninsured patient for the same procedure. Not only that, i should be able to get the price for my upcoming appendix removal surgery from several different hospitals so that I can purchase health care services based on price competition just like every other market in this country.
I’m going to assume you’re just being obnoxious to avoid having to back yourself up. (But, if you really did have trouble following that, perhaps you should spend some time figuring out *why* you believe what you believe before attempting to convince other people of it.)
I see you repeated yourself. Congrats on your consistency, but I already know *what* you believe; what I want to know is *why*. For example, your “common sense” completely ignores our coalition political parties.
I apologize in advance if asking you to explain yourself comes across as demeaning, insulting, or otherwise not worth your time.
I don’t know what you’re asking me Dhoti.
You lost me at coalition political parties. I have no idea what that means and I’m honest enough to admit it.
Thanks for dropping the “superior” canard.
Here’s what I mean: since we’ve basically settled into the two-party system in the US, those parties have to encompass a wide range of opinions and issues. (For example, Greenpeace and the AFL-CIO are basically at each other’s throats in real life, yet they both fit into the Democratic Party.) Each of the major parties is made up of a coalition of more focused special interest groups, all of whom compromise with one another to form a party that basically moves in the direction they all want to go. (Kind of — see how the major parties break into wings.)
So, if I vote for a coalition candidate, that does *not* mean that I support all of their policies, or even most of their policies; it just means that, for whatever reason, I like them better. (The major parties, I think, try to turn people into single-issue voters so they can reduce their internal conflict, but that’s another story.) For example, I know plenty of staunchly anti-abortion people who voted for Obama. It’s the whole “lesser of two evils” thing.
So no, I don’t think it necessarily follows that an Obama voter, or even a majority of Obama voters, are going to necessarily agree on any one issue. And given that Obama only won by 2%, it would take 97% of all Obama voters agreeing on something to make up a majority of the electorate, and what are the odds of that happening on a single issue?
So we were fighting a war of symantecs…you wanted to say:
“Just because Obama won by a majority does not mean that a majority of the population supports Universal Health care.”
Right? (I agree)
And what I should have said (technically) was:
“Common sense dictates that a majority of people who support universal health care are Obama/left leaning voters”
Or were you trying to say that most health care supporters are on the right?
I agree with that, but it still doesn’t prove your original point. You said “so people who favor universal health care (a majority)”.
You still haven’t shown how a majority of people favor universal health care. Yes, a majority of the electorate voted for Obama, and I agree that a majority of universal health care supporters support Obama, but nothing in there shows that universal health care supporters make up a majority of the electorate.
I guess I did say that…although I was referencing “in the know” and he claimed that statistic in his post. I didn’t look it up for myself, although now that I look at it more closely I see he was challenging the demographic polled. I would assume that although a number of Obama voters don’t support his health care plan, at least SOME McCain voters must support it.
@ The Steve: While I’m extreeeeemely dubious about Obama’s health care plan, I do think that the biggest problem with health care costs in the US is that we have the private-insurance-company middleman between the patient and the care, whose PRIMARY goal is not the well-being of the patient, but the profits of the insurance company. As a capitalist, I believe in businesses making a profit if they can, but I think inserting an extra layer of profit-grubbing into our health care system has been generally deleterious.
Oh, and to clarify, I did vote McCain…
….”Would you rather have had the election fixed so your candidate won, ignoring the will of the people and undermining democracy?”
That’s exactly what’s happened….actually.
Why is it, people in Canada and England come HERE to get the health care they can’t because of their own country’s system that is now being forced on us here?
Doesn’t that common Fu(king sense you mentioned more than once tell you that if it doesn’t work THERE and people come HER to avoid it, then adopting THEIR system is Fu(king RETARDED…even to someone with very little common Fu(king sense?
RICH people come here because they can afford to buy the best health care that the private market can offer. Working class Canadians are not crossing the border for health care, because it’s expensive.
Every day Americans buy prescription drugs from Canada, because they are AFFORDABLE.
Private health care is awesome if you have money, or insurance. If you are working poor then you get completely screwed.
(don’t get started on welfare leeches, they’re part of the problem too)
Why can’t we have public hospitals and private hospitals just like we do schools?
If you’re rich, go to the private hospital and pay more. If you’re working class, go to the public hospital and get affordable health care that may not be as good, but is certainly better than nothing.
“Why is it, people in Canada and England come HERE to get the health care they can’t…”
It’s simple, really. Canada has about 30 million people, UK has about 60 million, and the US has about 300 million. We have more people, so naturally we have more options. If someone has a rare disease, we’re more likely to have a specialist here simply because of the numbers. I’ll put it this way–where would you expect to find the most options: in a city of 30,000 people; 60,000 people; or 300,000 people?
“because of their own country’s system that is now being forced on us here?”
Canada and UK each have very different health care systems. Canada has government-run, single-payer health insurance with private hospitals and doctors (think our Congress’s health care but for everyone), while UK has government-run hospitals (think VA hospitals but for everyone) alongside private health care for those who can afford it (think our current system). Obama’s plan is not really like either.
If you’re going to talk trash about something, it helps to know what you’re talking about.
It’s not about winning or losing. You missed the point. Simply put the Democrats have the “We won, we’re going to shove our ideals down the throats of all Americans” attitude. Which means they will not be in power that long (good thing for me b/c I hate taxes). There’s a reason the Senate’s approval rating is STILL falling even though there has been drastic “change”. I’ve got a feeling that the Democrats are going to lose many a seat in the next election b/c of their attitude, which has become worse than Bush’s “You’re either with me or against me” attitude. Now it’s sit down shut up and enjoy the ride, b/c we the government knows what’s best for you and your family, even thought we can’t run our own. (Yes repubs and dems both fail at families).
Well, for starters, there’s cap & trade, health care, GM, Chrysler, the stimulus…
That was my point exactly. A majority of people who support universal healthcare are Obama supporters. And the majority of the people polled were obama supporters. Thusly, the scope of the survey was narrowed to skew the end result. Therefore invalidating the overall poll results and the NYT headline “majority of people support universal healthcare”. Common sense (minus the explative) is lacking in this country. I like popsicles. I ask 100 people if they like popsicles. I know that 78 of them are members of the popsicle lovers society. Do you honestly think I can draw any conclusive results that reach beyond the scope of my sample group? Say yes and prove me wrong
I don’t know, ILPB. Voting for Obama, who has not hidden his desire to bring universal health care to the USA, would be voting for that desire for UHC. You can’t vote for Obama and then say “Okay, I want to vote for pulling out of Iraq, but not UHC.” You vote for Obama, you vote for everything he represents. (Which I didn’t have a problem doing actually LOL)
Eric: If we weren’t really in a two party system (face it we are) I would agree with you. However in the last election I think people were voting more on the economy and “anybody but Bush” montra, rather than Helath Care. Hiliary Tried this and failed miserably (which is what helped pave the way for Republicans). I think Obama needs to be careful. If he oversteps too much the moderate public that did vote for will be lost. And as I see it this country is swinging WILDLY to the left. Also I’m a greedy hoe, I already pay for Health Insurance and Medicare (FICA), so why now am I going to pay another tax for more helath care I’m not gonna use. (I’m scared of Drs. they poke and prod and don’t buy dinner first… turn and cough?!?!? Spread them?!?!?! EEWWWWW)
Wow. Stunning.
You realize that what you’ve described is actually tyranny, yes?
Well, it’s technically elective dictatorship, or parliamentary democracy, but I can see how you might confuse them, given how few Americans have even been exposed to Political Theory 101.
The difference is that there is no legal procedural mechanism for getting rid of a tyrant.
But doesn’t a Tyrant usually start off in a elective dictatorship and or paramilitary democracy, or coupe, or elected by disillusioned people who are upset about the past administration and will vote anyone in regardless of history (or lack there of) just to spite the other party? (Sorry had to go there)
Yeah, I’ll give you that, in some cases I know of. (but it’s [military] coup; a coupe is a type of car
)
To justify Dhoti’s accusation in the type of case in question, you’d have to have some form of evidence that the elected head of Government had plans to remove or ignore the electoral framework during/at end of their term.
Paw: So my spelling sucks, why is it liberals always try to point that out ot people. Yeah yeah yeah you seem more intelligent if you spell things correctly, but really that’s like saying you seem more business like in a suit. You can always dress a monkey in a suit. (great commericals btw)
Einstein supposedly had dyslexia.
paws: see below. Your strawman argument is amusing, but irrelevant.
ILPB, it’s not just liberals who do that.
That’s just an asinine comment to make.
I understand your eagerness to play that card; but in this case you should have perhaps read and understood my statement before responding, to save yourself any embarrassment.
I wasn’t referring to any political system, but rather to Steve’s obviously false conflation of Obama voters with supporters of a particular universal health care proposal. Since it is false to assert that all Obama voters support one particular form of universal health care, it is illegitimate to claim a mandate on their behalf — and that would be, technically…wait for it…tyrannical.
Was that sufficiently clear?
Check my 8:53
ILPB – Spelling point was a joke. If you can’t see that when it’s pointed up with a smilie, there’s no hope for you.
Dhoti – that wasn’t a straw man; it’s how parliamentary democracy works. You vote for the candidate you like most. No-one since some of the Greek city states has ever managed to make true democracy where everyone votes on every issue work, and they had much smaller populations, and even then didn’t have universal sufferage.
Why are you still talking about systems of government, when I already explained I was referring to Steve’s creative interpretation of the mandate?
PAws: CRAP!! I forgot the (note sarcasm). I know you were joking, but come on so was Cane when he killed Able. You know it all started out as a joke… Cane was trying to trick Able out of his coat, so he was gonna offer his PSP up for the coat, but not inculde any games. When Able found out… oh hell you know the story.
Contrarywise Dhoti; you’re the one who’s complaining that you don’t like the use of the mandate as support for the policy platform, despite the fact that the system of government that is used means that mandating the candidate means supporting the policy platform as whole, not cherry picking the policies you like from that platform.
As for why I’m talking about systems of government, it’s because I’m trying to explain how our systems both work in broad, and not to debate individual policy points. Ok?
That’s disgusting – but par for the course with your typical left-wing MSM machine.
That is totally and categorically false. It will contain a lot more BS than that.
Why the heck do you think it’s reffered to as Fox “noise?”
As Olbermann calls it: “Fixed News.”
Ever notice that liberals fight loudest against what they fear the most?
I’m not sure I see your point. They wouldn’t go around fighting the things they love, would they?
I love freedom of speech!
LET’S END IT! Grab the pitchforks!!
Igloo: Actually isn’t that what they do? How many times have I seen where PC run amok has tried to silence free speech. I don’t understand how someone can make a pianting of the Virgin Mary out of cow dung and be defended as art and freedom of speech, but if someone else were to say muslim terrorist, they are practically executed.
Name one person who has ever faced legal repercussions in this country for saying, “Muslim terrorist,” or something even remotely similar. I’ll save you the trouble: it’s probably never happened, and if it had, I’m sure the SCOTUS would have overturned it. The First Amendment is pretty clear on this.
“Political correctness” is not a free speech issue. For instance, I don’t think people should walk up to an overweight person on the street and say, “Go on a diet, fatass!” But at the same time, I wouldn’t support a law banning it. But then again, I’d have no problem using my free speech rights to tell you that I think you shouldn’t do such a thing. Saying you shouldn’t do something is not the same as prohibiting it. And free speech certainly doesn’t mean that you get to say whatever you want but nobody gets to call you on it.
To summarize: you’re free to use your First Amendment-guaranteed free speech to say, “Muslim terrorist” (as shown in the post above), just as I’m free to use my First Amendment-guaranteed free speech to point out that such a thing would be as offensive and wrongheaded as referring to “Christian terrorists” on account of the abortion clinic bombings. See, the system works!
That’s really not true at all, ILPB. The government has never shut down a private enterprise for not being PC. If they did, that would be infringing on free speech.
Subtlefuge is completely right–people who campaign for political correctness aren’t trying to get people locked up for using offensive terms or to end free speech (at least not all of them). Most are trying to get people to think about what they’re saying and respect other beliefs and cultures.
I never said Government. We’re talking about how liberals have tried to stop free speech in this country.
1. Imus
2. American Flag in government cubes
3. Religious symbols in Government Employee cubes
4. European laws that have outlawed “Hate Speech”
5. Obama’s and the Democrats new “Anti Hate Crimes” law
Not saying the stupid Christian Right hasn’t done the same, it’s just that both sides annoy the crap out of me when they scream “Free Speech” while trying to silence the dissention to that speech.
1. Imus’s firing had nothing to do free speech. Imus worked for CBS, and they can fire him if they don’t like what he’s saying on their network or because sponsors are pulling their ads. Let’s put it this way: if you got a job as a Wal-Mart cashier, you would be within your free speech rights to spend all day talking about how awful Wal-Mart is. You’d probably also get fired if you did that at work.
2. First, it was a shared cubicle at a private hospital, not a “Government Employee cube.” Second, the issue wasn’t that it was a flag, but that it was a 3 x 5 foot flag that took up almost the entire wall and distracted the other workers who shared the cubicle. Third, there’s no evidence the supervisor was a “liberal” or that political motivations had anything to do with his decision.
3. In my Google search I couldn’t find any example of this ever occurring. You’re not making things up, are you?
4. Irrelevant. I’m talking about the US, not Europe.
5. You do realize that it first has to be a crime before it can be considered a hate crime, right? Saying offensive things is not a crime, so saying offensive things about a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is not a hate crime. However, beating the crap out of someone is a crime, so if it can be proven that the motive for doing so was a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., it is a hate crime, and the punishment is stronger. So how does that affect your free speech?
Assault, rape and murder are always hate crimes.
No one is ever going to convince me otherwise.
Free speech is guaranteed by the government. Private civilians don’t really have responsibility to provide free speech. If radio broadcasters or whatever decide that the outrage over Imus is warranted, then they can shut him down. They have that freedom. I’m not sure what happened with 2 and 3, so I’ll skip it. As for number 4, that’s Europe. You started out talking about liberals in “this country” so I don’t see why you jumped to Europe. As for 5, I think the laws are “hate crime laws” because “anti-hate crime” sounds like the opposite. I don’t support hate crime laws, but I don’t see how that is a violation of free speech. It strengthens the punishment for attacking, let’s say, a black man. You don’t have a right granted by free speech to attack black men, and they aren’t infringing on your right to be a racist prick. What’s your argument?
ILPB, please don’t cite European laws as liberals trying to silence free speech in this country.
We don’t control what goes on over there.
Ever notice that modern conservatives prefer to send others to do their fighting for them?
We don’t FEAR it. We just think it’s stupid.
Plus if we only fought the things we liked, where would we be?
In the great words of Eric in St Louis. **Pathetic** Can we please get some originality. The last few pages of Blogshave basically been bashing Sanford, Bush Fox News, and Putin. CAN we PLEASE get some new material? For once possibly could we make fun of something else. The only break we had was the Rligious Idiots that everyone agreed was fun to make fun of.
I agree, just less finger wagging (look! your side is bad!!) from one side to the other would be nice. You may believe it’s true, it’s just not all that funny.
::stands proud::
Thank you, thank you very much!
Didn’t some major news anchor report a blatant lie about GWB and his military service awhile back, before the election? I can’t remember his name so I can’t find a source on it. Can someone refresh my memory? I think we can find examples like this all over the media, it’s not just one outlet. Unfortunately the days of unbiased reporting are over, everyone is owned by someone these days.
Shamlessly copied and pasted from Wikipedia:-
Dubya’s “service” record.
In May 1968, Bush was commissioned into the Texas Air National Guard.[25] After training, he was assigned to duty in Houston, flying Convair F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base.[26] Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father’s political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance.[27] In June 2005, the United States Department of Defense released all the records of Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service, which remain in its official archives.[28]
In late 1972 and early 1973, he drilled with the Alabama Air National Guard, having moved to Montgomery, Alabama to work on the unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton M. Blount. In October 1973, Bush was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and transferred to inactive duty in the Air Force Reserve. He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974, at the end of his six-year service obligation
It was Dan Rather who MADE UP the story about Bush and that basically ended his “career”. I’d love to hear just ONE example of FOX news making up 100% fake stories…..like the NY Times and many many other “news” organizations do on a regular basis.
By the way, there’s no dispute that Bush DID actually fly airplanes, something the average person couldn’t do if their life depended on it and certainly not that Kenyan communist. Of course, just having a J O B would put him a step above him and most of the people here.
See the multiple links above, specifically the Fox News Reefer Madness.
It is indeed 100% made up, I’m sorry to be the one to inform you.
Yes! Dan Rather, I couldn’t remember that for the life of me. You’d think you would come up with a story just googling “major news anchor lied”…
Results 1 – 10 of about 87,000 for major news anchor lied
Not sure what you mean NMB, I didn’t see anything on Dan Rather, but I didn’t look real close either…
There’s no evidence that Dan Rather “made up” the story. He was given documents by an army officer, and the documents turned out to be forgeries. CBS thought they were real–hell the White House must have thought they were real because they released them after the story broke and they got a copy.
However, nobody has refuted the validity of the contents of the documents–allegations that Bush went AWOL–only the validity of the documents themselves.
Wiki article. {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate}
Short version, Rather and his boss never verified the documents, and there is no actual proof that they are real.
You obviously missed the point. Yes, the specific documents were found to be forgeries, but the substantive allegations behind those documents–and the whole “newsworthiness” aspect of said documents: that Bush went AWOL during his stint in the Texas Air National Guard–still has yet to be debunked.
More to the point: once it was found that Rather’s documents were illegitimate, the debate became not about what really happened during George Bush’s military stint (remember, Bush allies were extremely critical of Kerry’s military service), but about Dan Rather’s credibility. And that’s as far as it went. So much for a “liberal media.”
The questions about Bush’s military service have never been answered, despite anything Dan Rather has done (or not done).
It was the gleeful way that Dan Rather reported on a (false) story that chapped everyone. He had to be thrown under the bus to save what little credibility the news media had left. If you’ll read the article, even though it’s just a Wiki article, you’ll find that the credibility of the story itself was at issue, not just the documents. To this day no credible source has come forward to dispute Bush’s record of service, little though it may be.
Also the story about Obama being educated in a Madrasah 100% made up.
paws: I’m so proud of you!!! See liberals do tell the truth. Shame on you conservatives for saying they lie.
Bottom line ALL media is Bias. It just happens, and rarely do they admit it. Fox news as well. The problem I have is when reporters claim to be hard a$$es and then throw soft ball questions. O’Riley with any conservative, Chris Matthews with most liberals, Matt Lauer’s Superbowl interview with Obama. Only if the reporter disagrees with the individual do they “storm the castle”, at least on Politicians. So how about we substitute Fox News up there with “Media”. Then we all can laugh and agree. It’s not only the Conservatives that drive wedges between our ideals.
Fox News is by far the most biased and untruthful.
Sorry Nailin, I think your leftist bias is off the mark there. They are all the same. Let’s just look at last election, if you can’t see that then really facts will be lost on you. Also besides that being your opinion could you run an excel spreadsheet comparison on all the Media outlets, and show me that Fox lies the most.
Meh, I think it’s all full of crap.
Which is why I believe very little of it.
But NO MO BAMA’S comment “I’d love to hear just ONE example of FOX news making up 100% fake stories….”
Made me giggle.
Thanks for that.
One sidebar note though; to me, and I suspect most non-US citizens, your NG is a “reserve service”, who will not normally be called upon to service overseas or “in theatre”.
I’d take “military service” to mean full time service with the regulars.
Why am I not surprised that here, where the unemployed welfare leaching liberal morons come to jerk off over their savior, would someone actually say that the media “leans right”. What f&%ing planet are you on?
FOX beats all the communist propaganda machines in the ratings…why is that? Could it be that liberals are all uninformed clueless retards who believe CNN when they piss down your back and tell you it’s raining?
What’s it going to take before you people GET IT?
This country is being destroyed from within and it’s 100% INTENTIONAL!
Please take your medicine, and take that damn tin-foil hat off already.
Do you people do nothing but REPEAT the same tired lines over and over and over? No wonder you don’t work and have to leach off the government, you’re too damn stupid to even push a broom.
From reading his comments, it looks like NO_MO-BAMA is wearing his tinfoil hat on his ass.
And the country IS being destroyed from within, and it is 100% intentional, and it’s being done by the conservative fundie Republicans who want to turn the U.S. from a democracy into a fascist dictatorship.
And talk about repeating the same lines over and over: how many times have you heard some nutjob rightwing extremist smear everyone who doesn’t believe the same lies and crap he does by claiming they are all unemployed and on welfare. Talk about promoting stupid lies. No wonder they drool over Fox News. Heck, some of them are so delusional they think Ann Coulter is attractive.
Really? Was it a republican who took over 2 of the biggest companies in the country? was it a republican who took over the banks? was it a republican who came up with the biggest TAX in history or COMMUNIST “health care”? Obama is the closest thing to a wannabe dictator this country has ever seen.
He’s a socialist, just like Hitler and Stalin and if you’re too damn stupid to see that, I rest my case.
PS: Obama’s voting base are stupid people ON WELFARE you idiot, the goal of communism is to get 51% of the people dependent on the government to ensure being “elected”, why do you think ACORN exists?
PSS: JFK was a democrat too, he would have had Obama put in jail…if not killed…he started a war to fight exactly what’s happening here now. SAD
I’m also gonna go out on a limb and bet that Ann Coulter is like 100000000 times more attractive than YOU.
Hitler wasn’t a socialist, neither was Stalin.
Hitler was a FASCIST, Stalin was a COMMUNIST. Take a political course, for god’s sake. And there’s a huge difference between socialism and communism. Read. A. Book. Do you really think that the only people who were on welfare voted for Obama? What drugs are you on? Educate yourself, you dumb fool. It won’t hurt, I promise.
Also, it’s P.P.S. and my physical appearance has nothing to do with anything. Don’t make ridiculous arguments.
/grin
Ah, how seeing you refute his points with common sense and logic brightens my day.
It’s surprisingly easy, because his errors jump out at you like one of those pop-out books.
And also, could you comment on the fact that he assumes he knows what JFK would do?
I mean really, that’s just bigoted. And I think JFK, if he were president, would give Obama (whatever he would be in this alternate universe) his right to free speech.
P.P.S, The president can’t legally have anyone killed, not a law-abiding U.S. citizen, certainly.
Well, in a case I was involved with recently I deposed a party who told me that JFK talked to them regularly. We could ask him.
Bullshit. JFK’s MY head-mate!
SHHHH. Didn’t the doctors say not to tell the passerby about your condition?
None of you ahhsholes ahh real inniewah!
*joins Jack for a threesome with Marilyn*
who let you out of the retirement home grandpa? seriously the red scare is over you can shut the hell up about communism already
“Was it a republican who took over 2 of the biggest companies in the country?”
I assume you mean GM and Chrysler. Nobody “took them over.” The companies were free to refuse the bailout money (and go out of business) if they didn’t like the attached strings.
“was it a republican who took over the banks?”
Yes! His name was George W. Bush. He’s the guy who instigated the bank bailouts, remember? Only, he did it unconditionally. And what happened? The CEOs gave themselves bonuses! If Obama had unconditionally given the car companies a bunch of taxpayer money, the CEOs most likely would’ve given themselves bonuses, and you’d be complaining about that. If Obama had let them go out of business, the economy would’ve tanked even more, and you’d be complaining about that. Obama chose the least crappy out of three crappy options.
“was it a republican who came up with the biggest TAX in history”
Engage in hyperbole much? Obama’s plan is to let the Bush tax cuts on people making over $300,000/year expire. That would make the tax rate the same as during the Reagan administration on people earning over $300,000, and even lower on people earning less. How is that the biggest tax in history?
“or COMMUNIST “health care”?”
There’s nothing “communist” about Obama’s health care plan, or even “socialist”. Private hospitals and insurance would still be around.
“Obama is the closest thing to a wannabe dictator this country has ever seen.”
Really? In what way? He’s not doing anything Bush didn’t do. In fact, I remember warning righties on the “internets” during the Bush administration that Bush’s expanding of the Executive Branch would cause headaches for Republicans once a Democrat gets elected because that genie just won’t go back in the bottle. So, the Republicans can share the blame if you think Obama has too much power.
“He’s a socialist, just like Hitler and Stalin and if you’re too damn stupid to see that, I rest my case.”
What? Hitler was a fascist and Stalin was a communist. The two are diametrically opposed. Obama is neither. I would suggest learning the meaning of the word, “socialist,” before calling people stupid.
“PS: Obama’s voting base are stupid people ON WELFARE you idiot, the goal of communism is to get 51% of the people dependent on the government to ensure being “elected”, why do you think ACORN exists?”
Are you suggesting that 51% of the voting public is on welfare? You can’t be serious.
“PSS: JFK was a democrat too, he would have had Obama put in jail…if not killed…he started a war to fight exactly what’s happening here now. SAD”
Eisenhower started arming the French against the Vietminh. Kennedy hardly “started a war,” and last I checked Obama is not a Vietnamese nationalist with Leninist leanings. And your assertion that Kennedy would’ve had Obama killed is outright inane. You must not be serious.
“I’m also gonna go out on a limb and bet that Ann Coulter is like 100000000 times more attractive than YOU.”
What does that have to do with anything. You must be a troll. Nobody could seriously be this crazy.
I don’t like NO_MO_BAMA, but I certainly have to say regardless of what I think of him, you’ve just done a fine job of picking an argument and refuting it bit by bit- very thoroughly, too, nice job
That was beautiful. I think I love you.
GM and Chrysler were free to refuse bailout money? And the TARP was an unconditional loan? LOL! Turn off MSNBC and start doing your own research.
If you don’t understand that cap and trade is a tax, and a horribly regressive one at that…well, I don’t think I can explain it to you. And I think your information is old — Obama’s $300K promise is already well out of date. (And let me guess…you don’t think he’s about to break that promise too and raise your taxes, right?)
“GM and Chrysler were free to refuse bailout money?”
Of course they could’ve.
“And the TARP was an unconditional loan?”
It was when it started out (courtesy of the Bush administration). Then the CEOs who caused this mess used the funds to give themselves bonuses (big shocker, eh?) and the public became outraged. Then Congress added provisions that included limiting executive compensation.
“If you don’t understand that cap and trade is a tax, and a horribly regressive one at that…well, I don’t think I can explain it to you.”
Whether it’s a “tax” or not is a matter of semantics. But the original poster referred to it as “the biggest TAX in history”. That’s absolutely ridiculous. A tax is not optional. This is. If you don’t want your company to buy the credits, don’t pollute. It’s pretty simple, really.
“And I think your information is old — Obama’s $300K promise is already well out of date. (And let me guess…you don’t think he’s about to break that promise too and raise your taxes, right?)”
Let’s see, he’s increased tax on cigarettes. I don’t smoke, so my taxes haven’t gone up. He’s increasing capital gains (still not to the level of income from working, but I digress). No capital gains, here. He’s letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those making over $250,000 (they would’ve expired for everyone if he had done nothing). I don’t make over $250,000. That’s the gist of it. So, no, my taxes aren’t going up.
Of course, if he decides to tax health benefits, then yes my taxes will go up. But it hasn’t happened yet, so we’ll see. And if it does, I think I’ll survive.
On the other hand, raising taxes is the only way Obama will be able to balance the budget since it’s politically impossible (thanks to the Military Industrial Complex and its supporters who are mainly on the right) to cut military spending, which is completely, insanely out of control. Where are the so-called fiscal conservatives on that? Bill Clinton was practically drawn and quartered by the right over essentially not increasing military spending as much as Reagan and Bush I did. You gut the Cold War-era projects and stop our military escapades all over the world, and raising taxes won’t be necessary whatsoever.
Your third paragraph about cap and trade can be summed up as such: If you don’t want to pay the IRS taxes, don’t earn money. You can’t just “not pollute” according to the standards that they’re coming up as far as what constitutes pollution. Cow farts? Didn’t they try that in the 90′s too? Also, if CO2 is a pollutant, then the simple act of breathing is pollution.
-
As far as the broken promise of not raising taxes, taxes will go up on energy rates, which will increase your taxes whether you want them to increase or not. Taxing healthcare falls under an income tax because of the way that it’s caluculated, so there is no semantics there.
-
And the only way to pay for the deficit spending (which the Repubs are castigated for all the time) is to raise taxes across the board. It’s going to happen, regardless of what you’re telling yourself.
“Your third paragraph about cap and trade can be summed up as such: If you don’t want to pay the IRS taxes, don’t earn money.”
Lots of people earn money without polluting. You should try it some time.
“You can’t just ‘not pollute’ according to the standards that they’re coming up as far as what constitutes pollution.”
I have yet to see any “standards” at this point for CO2 levels. Everything now is still being debated, so we don’t know what the final decision will be. Cap and Trade for the acid rain program has been around for 14 years and has worked well. Our economy didn’t fall apart in 1995, did it?
“Cow farts? Didn’t they try that in the 90’s too? Also, if CO2 is a pollutant, then the simple act of breathing is pollution.”
But I have yet to see anything that “taxes” anyone on breathing. If that happens, I’ll be the first person to protest. Otherwise, this is all a red herring.
“As far as the broken promise of not raising taxes, taxes will go up on energy rates, which will increase your taxes whether you want them to increase or not.”
What taxes? I know of no proposed increase on the *rate* of taxes for any energy source.
“Taxing healthcare falls under an income tax because of the way that it’s caluculated, so there is no semantics there.”
But it isn’t–for now. I’ve never paid income taxes on the value of my health benefits and neither have you–unless you got ripped off. The health insurance taxes are all hypothetical at this point. If it happens, then we’ll see. To me, it doesn’t sound like a good idea, but I’ll reserve my judgment until I see the finished product, so to speak.
“And the only way to pay for the deficit spending (which the Repubs are castigated for all the time) is to raise taxes across the board. It’s going to happen, regardless of what you’re telling yourself.”
Um, no, I don’t see any Republicans being “castigated” for proposing raising “taxes across the board”. I can’t think of a single Republican candidate for any position advocating raising taxes.
Of course raising taxes is pretty much the only way to pay down our debt (or else cut the military by a LOT–probably at least 75%), but there’s no political will to make it happen. It’s up to you and I to make it happen, but we’re too busy arguing semantics on an internet message board.
In that case, please, explain to me exactly how the bailouts were optional. I can’t wait.
So, let me see if I understand your position — you fully admit that Obama’s campaign promise to not raise taxes was a lie, because not only has he already done so, you fully expect him to continue to do so in the future. However, you’re totally fine with that, because for shadowy and ill-defined reasons, it’s “not his fault” and therefore not the kind of lie you’re supposed to get upset about. Furthermore, you can’t be bothered to care about what happens to anyone else unless it happens to you personally first. Is that about right?
Some piece of work you are…
Dhoti, based on the points you made, I believe the word you’re looking for is “Antisocial Personality Disorder”
“So, let me see if I understand your position — you fully admit that Obama’s campaign promise to not raise taxes was a lie…”
Here’s the rub, Obama never, ever promised to not EVER raise ANY taxes. You’re totally putting words into his mouth. And I don’t even like Obama so much that I feel the need to defend him all the time. But I’m certain he never said what you’re accusing him of having said. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re simply misinformed.
Obama never promised to never raise taxes on cigarettes that I have heard. And he did talk about raising capital gains during his campaign. But I have yet to see any campaign promise about taxes that Obama has broken (unless the aforementioned health insurance benefits tax happens, which, at this point, is still only a rumor).
“because not only has he already done so, you fully expect him to continue to do so in the future. However, you’re totally fine with that, because for shadowy and ill-defined reasons, it’s “not his fault” and therefore not the kind of lie you’re supposed to get upset about.”
Everything you said there was based on a faulty premise (the he “lied”, which never happened) so let’s move on…
“Furthermore, you can’t be bothered to care about what happens to anyone else unless it happens to you personally first. Is that about right?”
Hmm. Let’s review:
“Dhoti says:
July 3, 2009 at 9:52 am
[...]
And let me guess…you don’t think he’s about to break that promise too and raise your taxes, right?”
You made it about me. I wasn’t even talking about my situation until you brought it up. Note the word, “your”. So I responded directly to your question, and then you got all sanctimonious and smug about it.
How about instead of talking about what either of us said on an internet message board, we could talk about the huge debt this country is currently in, and that it’s likely to lead to a huge devaluation of the dollar unless we do something about it, and that the only two ways to fix the debt is to increase revenue (taxes) or decrease expenses, but many of the expenses go toward social programs that, if eliminated, would hurt the economy even more by leaving a bunch of people high and dry (and not able to pay taxes), and majority of the expenses go toward military spending, which is way out of control, but if any politician cuts that, he/she would be accused of “hating the troops”, so that only leaves increasing taxes, but the Republicans had been accusing Obama of raising taxes all along, especially since the Bush tax cuts (which contributed to the recession/depression we’re in now) were set to expire during the next president’s term, and so he/she would either have to renew the cuts (which certainly wouldn’t help the economy) or do nothing and be accused of “raising taxes”, just as you’re doing right now. So since Obama was already going to be accused of raising taxes, he went ahead and let some tax cuts expire as they had already been scheduled to do and raised a few others that he either had said during his campaign he was going to raise or never said he wasn’t. Meanwhile, you’re crowing about him breaking a promise he never made except in your dreams. Is that about right?
Or we could just get all personal…
“Some piece of work you are…”
It must be nice to be able to read a few comments on an internet message board and then be able to pass judgment on others so easily. But if it helps you feel better about yourself, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.
Meh, Subtle, Dhoti’s a regular here and he’s usually pretty nice. Let’s not go bashing HIM- there are people like Again who need to be pigpiled first
subtlefuge isn’t bashing anyone, Tyler; he’s countering Dhoti’s points (quite handily I thought). Anyway, let people say what they want to say. The less moderation, the better in my opinion.
Fascist=leftist…Sorry your teachers omited facts form their lectures.”Those who can’t do, teach”…Sdaly…it’s true.
Eh, that’s debatable. I’d argue that fascists are right, communists are left. In theory (and we’re only talking about theory, not execution) fascism has extreme versions of what most conservatives believe and is extremely anti-liberal and anti-progressive. In theory it opposes communist and socialist beliefs, which are both definitely leftist.
It’s funny that he says “Sorry your teachers omited facts form their lectures sdaly it’s true.”
Because those who can’t spell, criticize teachers because they never learned to think or wanted to learn in the first place.
Highly debatable even; Wikipedia actually suggests that professional political theorists have argued both ends of this one. The article does correctly pick up the difference between Communism (where everyone owns equal shares of everything in common and can extract equal shares of use from it) and State Capitalism (as practiced by the former USSR, where the State owns everything, and allocates use to people as it sees fit [usually inequitably]).
get over yourself, seriously, i was enjoying reading all these comments over who was the better network, now you come blowing your trumpet like a 5 year old screaming for attention, im sure someone posted a bunch of links pointing towards lies made by FOX, im not saying it does, cos i dont watch any of those networks, but way to kill the point of the arguement?
ZOMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!1!1!
Cite examples of the destruction, because I just don’t see it. Most of the damage was caused by the private sector taking advantage of one another motivated by greed.
If you think the country is being destroyed because the new administration isn’t legislating morality and religious values, then perhaps from your perspective it is destruction. Sadly, if you think morals need to be law, then you’ve missed the point of Christianity entirely.
Do I wish the government would do a bit less spending? Of course.
Would I rather see spending on our own country, (health care, education, mass transit) than billions of dollars pouring into Iraq? Hell yes.
We already spend almost 60% here, most of which goes to pay the bottom of the barrel to reproduce endlessly including 100% FREE health care, rent, food and here in Massachusetts, even free f’ing CARS! Please tell me how this benefits society, paying the least productive to produce NOTHING, EVER, for generations.
All our basic laws are based on morals and religion you idiot, ever hear of the ten commandments?
Did you miss the bit where the US auto industy went to the Government asking for handouts?
No, they went to the government looking for L O A N S because the corrupt communist unions had bankrupted them and Obama gives the unions who destroyed them control. Now if that’s not right out of the communist play book, I don’t know what is.
Now he wants to TAX health benefits for anyone EXCEPT people in unions….yeah, that’s fair, right? Isn’t there something in the constitution about equal protection? Oh yeah, I forgot, Obama doesn’t believe in that old thing, it’s so…outdated.
Your argument points are illogical and you sound like a screechy owl who needs to get out of my damn state. Please.
Can you do anything EXCEPT call everyone with a different opinion than you a communist?
Not on this thread.
You’re right, evidently not.
Communist.
Butterist.
As it was reported here, the auto industry wanted a mixture of grands, and loans at below market rates. To me, those are handouts.
And, frankly, if I’m lending you that sort of money, I want seats on the board as a condition of giving you it. I will then ask people who I think know what they’re doing and will represent my interests to fill those seats.
I don’t know the details of how it is proposed to tax health benefits, but if your empolyer is giving you $12_000 a year of health insurance as well as your salary, why shouldn’t you pay tax on it? Contrarywise, if a body that you’re a member of negotiates you a discount on goods and services that you pay for out of your taxed salary, surely you should not be taxed on the discount you get from the market value?
A fail so epic it can not be described.
I’m not American, not unemployed, don’t watch Fox or CNN (I get most of my news coverage from the net, and multi-source it, as you’ll know if you read this thread [you can read, can't you?
]). I’m fairly sure that most of the other regular posters either have jobs or are still at High School too!
Not American= Irrelevant to American politics
in the know: Paws is preetty good, not the typical outside USA liberal who thinks we’re a facist country, b/c **GASP** we let our people decide what helath care they want. Lay off of Paws. Now The Steve and Nailin Palin (what a calssy name REALLY) is open season on.
Well I don’t think he uses the name to make nice with conservatives or anything…
I don’t think we’re a fascist country, but I missed the part where we “let our people decide what helath care they want.” I’m fortunate enough to have good care (thanks to my wife’s nice government job), but most other people I know are either not insured or woefully under-insured. The reason is not that they “decided” to be that way, but because they either can’t afford a better plan or can’t find a job that offers one.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence about the “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Health care definitely falls in this category. Pricing health insurance so high that people can’t afford it is most definitely denying another of his/her inalienable rights, no matter how you spin it.
So do you like imagine, in your world, a nefarious central authority somewhere, with men in smoking jackets twirling their black mustaches and sighing, “Ahhh jessss…ve vill set dat price just high enough so zat ze proletariat can not afford it” and then issuing an evil cackle or what?
By the way, the founders never included medical insurance in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” though they certainly did include the right to own property.
An “inalienable right” to “life” sounds to me like you have a right to medical care. Ownership of property is irrelevant.
Bullshit. Health care is a social right.
How can you claim “bullshit” and then agree with something I said? That makes no sense.
Would’ve been quite foresighted of them if they had mentioned it, since medical insurance didn’t really exist prior to the 20th century.
I know, right? Same thing I thought.
While we’re inventing rights, I’d be a lot happier if I had a swimming pool. Can I have a right to one of those please? Government = Santa Claus!
That’s a red herring. Motivation is irrelevant.
As a non-US citizen who is interested in global politics, I find it hilarious when you bicker about what’s “left” and “right”, when even the Democrats would be classified as undisputedly right-wing pretty much anywhere else in the world.
Calling any US media biased to the left is silly. You guys clearly haven’t encountered any real socialist propaganda.
When you sit on the ultra-extreme right side, everything will appear to be to the left.
In order to be balanced, you have to aim for the center, which Fox with abundant clarity doesn’t even bother with.
Had they openly stated that they have republican bias, as the entire world knows they do, people would ridicule them less.
All media are always biased in some way. Pretending that you aren’t is dumb. People who believe it are dumber.
Not American= Not relevant
How do you figure? You don’t think that whoever is in charge in England (Tory or Labor) has an effect on United States/British relations? And the same goes for the United States. Do you really live in a fabulous xenophobic bubble where the U.S.’s party in power does or does not affect relations with other nations? Do you honestly believe that this entire planet is full of countries just tripping along their merry ways, with no care for what anyone else is doing? Do you really think that people should be unaware of global politics?
And are you implying that not having American citizenship makes a person’s opinion irrelevant? Seriously? As an American (I’m assuming you are an American from your statement), I’d have thought you would value free speech and free opinion. I certainly hope you’ve never complained about your freedom of speech being infringed upon, since you seem so ready to dismiss someone from a conversation because they don’t meet your personal standard of eligibility. Outside observers can be incredibly astute, and outside opinion can add dimension to a conversation. For shame.
My opinion regarding the politics of Austria are irrelevant. I am not an Austrian. I am not directly affected by the politics of Austria. If I disagree with the laws of Austria, my company will not do business there. For shame? For naught.
I’m really getting annoyed with these righty trolls popping in out of nowhere with their snark. I’m even more annoyed that the righty regulars aren’t kicking them to the curb like the lefties did with that nutjob Again. People like in the know and NO_MO_BAMA are killing the comments around here lately. I can do without it.
Eric, small correction- we didn’t kick Again to the curb, we CURB STOMPED him.
See Eric with conservative Trolls you ignore them and they go away. insult them and they feel they’re winning the arguement (something us conservatie learned from liberals, the fact that liberals said when losing an argument and jumping to insults is the sign of knowing you’re losing or something like that.) So let’s all stand in a circle with our backs to the Con trolls (remember you used ot think I was one) and see how they react. If they play nice we’re ok. You do have ot realize though we just spent 2 years of Bush is dumb, if you like Bush you’re an ass, etc etc etc…. so we’re a little tired of the “you’re a conservative you’re an ass” type talking.
Yeah, well you’re just a conservative, and you’re an ass.
-
I have a nice conservative ass. 8)
Selfish braggart.
I’m just honest.
Selfish, though.
Pics, or it didn’t happen
*raps*
That’s a fine looking conservative, won’t you back that ass up?
>:D Oh Janie, how you manage to make me spit water all over my bedsheets…
I’m serious, I use the laptop from my futon and I just had to change the sheets
Glad to be of assistance!
-Ponders and giggles at the meaning of “Assistance” after “had to change my sheets”-
I’m not playing into your games, Dateline!
“I know your games, Chris Hansen!”
Btw, hit ctrl + T. Makes life 100x easier.
Why did you leave me something on facebook?
That’s Mr. Conservative Nice Ass to you…. no wait I’m an elephant, Democrats are asses…. (To cut off the non-witty types, look at your logo)
Old joke:
Of course Democrats are asses. Have you ever heard of a nice piece of elephant?
nah we just have long “trunks”!!!!!!
ad hominem abusive….
Bad-hummer abuses? I will not stand for that!!
Strongly seconded, and it’s not like I make any secret of not being a US citizen!
Sorry but the US Media is biased left to American Ideals. We don’t share the same concepts of Governemnt as you. Our Constitution was written to try and prevent a large government. We as a whole were designed to be a “conservative” nation. (Before liberals go nuts, look up what a conservative really is). We want a less restrictive government. Well value our freedom of speech here by leaps and bounds, even if we offend people. Europeans have outlawed making fun of Muslims, homosexuals, etc. How is that “progressive”? How is that not restrictive and well frankly anti-freedom? We have our Rights here, yes we abuse them, BUT everyone can abuse them equally.
read the constitution…I don’t remember the exact wording but I believe somewhere it says: those powers not belonging to the states are reserved for the federal government (without specificly naming those powers…I think it’s called the elastic clause but I could be mistaking it for another section)…doesn’t sound much like small government to me…
hahahaha… proud democrat should switch their name to ‘proud moron’…
.
the tenth amendment to the constitution says the EXACT OPPOSITE. it gives all powers not EXPRESSLY given to the federal government to the states and the people…
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
.
NEXT!
ROFLCOPTER!!! I was about to say that!
….and I typed too slowly.
sorry diss, you know that us libertarians love jumping up and down when people bring up the constitution…
I <3 the constitution….
And I wipe my ass with it. See? We DO all believe in fairies!
*claps*
I was wondering for a moment which country’s constitution he was suggesting I read, because I’ve read mine more than once.
*points and laughs at the proud moron*
Read the constitution….sound advice (especially when quoting it on the internet).
*brain hurts*
Nooooo! You’ve got that totally bassackwards. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
*facepalm*
You’re making us look bad, dude. Cut it out!!!!!
LOL. GREAT comment.
The Utah bit was especially funny
That’s odd, Zemn. See, I know quite a few people who emigrated here from communist countries with their parents as children (one brother-sister team in particular who have been through the horrors of communist medical treatments – or what torture chambers passed for medical treatment) and they say it looks JUST like Obama. In fact everyone I know in person who has escaped from such a regime says it looks just like this. Forgive me if I don’t take the anonymous word of someone wishing to score political points when real people tell me the exact opposite and have the scars to prove it.
“I know quite a few people who emigrated here from communist countries with their parents as children (one brother-sister team in particular who have been through the horrors of communist medical treatments – or what torture chambers passed for medical treatment) and they say it looks JUST like Obama.”
I’m calling bullshit here. Sorry, but I don’t buy it.
Sure, lots of crazy messed-up medical procedures have happened in “communist” (actually authoritarian, but whatever) countries. And I’m willing to believe that you’ve met some people who used to live in some of these countries, and that they’ve shown you their scars. But someone surviving all that and then comparing it to anything Obama has done in the five months or so since he’s been president is completely asinine. And if you’re making all this up simply to score points in a mostly pointless political debate on a website, that would make you one of the sorriest people I’ve ever come across online.
Another explanation is that everything you said is true, but you neglected to mention that the “communist medical treatments” destroyed these people’s ability to properly perceive reality. Or they simply watch nothing but Fox News and think Obama is a communist because Sean Hannity said so.
Sorry, SOME parts of Europe. Is that better?
FOX just sucks. They overdramatize EVERYTHING, and 9 times out of 10 the stuff they call “news” is irrelevant to my life. And I happen to think people who “lean right” are idiots. Yeah, you have a right to your opinion but that doesn’t mean I have to respect it.
Jocelyn: Why am I an idiot? What about my right leaning policies is idiotic? a) Less taxation. b) Smaller government (the true thought of a conservative not republicans, but conservatives) c) Not punishing people for succeeding (which the current taxation and taxation proposed by the left intends to do) d) Leave tobacco alone (one of the only industries in America not asking for Bail Out so let’s drive them to it).
Oh and another point: I don’t think judging a whole lot of people by just “leaning right” is really a good thing for anybody. So b/c I lean right I’m an idiot. Well so since I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom for consenting adults to marry whom they want, freedom for everyone to have a chance at the pie equally (NO ONE GETS PREFERNTIAL TREATMENT, NO ONE!) I’m an idiot, so if you believe those things you must be an idiot too. **EPIC FAIL**
(C) By this argument, all taxes should be flat rate, and your postal roundsman should pay as much income tax as Donald Trump (random choice of a truly wealthy man).
Also I’ll quote Adam Smith at you:
“A flat rate tax (he said poll tax, but it means the same thing), if rigourously enforced, would be efficient to collect. It would not, hoiwever, be contemplated by any government which took account of its people.” In other words, a progressive tax regime, you know one where you pay a percentage of your income, is the only type of tax that is fair to everyone, rather than massivelt advantaging the truly wealthy (say anyone on more than 3 times national average taxable income) at the expense of the vast majority.
HELL YEAH!! I love a flat tax….. best idea EVER!! Make it 25% for everyone. That way noone is over burdened, let’s say ummm the Middle Class!!!
That’s actually a progressive tax rate.
Scary scary “value added” tax being considered right now in addition to income tax! Big governments everywhere are doing it.
No what scares me is the Federal Sales Tax, Taxation of Health Benefits (stupid Repub idea), Energy Taxes, and the Smoking Taxes already in effect. Sorry Obama, but your promise to not tax those making less than $250K a year is going right out the window.
PAWs: It’s progressive, but conservative in nature. Less government. The Tax code we have in today’s IRS is clearly a “liberal” tax code, b/c it requires big government to run.
This is way worse than a Sales tax, a sales tax is taken once at the pos. With this thing a tax is added over the life of a product everytime value is added to it, through the production process. It will destroy small business. Well, even more than now. But they are looking for ways to pay for socialized health care.
Cap & Tax will put all those puling little taxes to shame and wipe out the middle class entirely. Then we won’t have to worry about how fair their/our taxes are because we won’t exist. Neither will the Trumps to give the rest of us jobs – equal poverty for all! Yay!
The EU and North American governments already do it; just NA does it at state level and calls it ” sales tax”.
Yes, but its taken at the point of sale only, not through out the life of the product.
You clearly missed something; with EU VAT, a manufacturer makes something, sells it, and charges vat on the factory gate price; a wholesaler buys it, makes a markup on what they pay, and sells it to a retailer for their wholesale price plus VAT. The then subtract the VAT they paid the manufacturer, and give what’s left of the VAT they recieved from the retailer to the govt. The reatiler does the sam with the consumer.
How is that very different from the retailer charging you he sales tax on the sale price?
How about this? “No New Taxes” of any kind. Let’s cut out a few things, like say Czars, aid to foregin countries that continually fight us, medicare waste and fraud, half of the staff for each senator, Obama not fly up to NYC for “date night” (especially when he’s asking Americans to sacrafice for the good of the country), Obama not fly out to Phoenix to sign the Stimulous Bill in a hard hit area, when he could sign the Bill just as well in his office, federal money going to other countries to study Hookers and sex or Homosexual behavior (hell go to LA or Vegas for both of those), etc etc etc…..
“Obama not fly out to Phoenix to sign the Stimulous Bill in a hard hit area”
Is this supposed to be a joke?
Option A: Sign the bill at home.
Option B: Fly out to a hard-hit area of Arizona, bringing 1,000 news crews and spectators with you to stay in their hotels, eat at their food places, and otherwise spend money in their community, in order to sign a bill that’s designed to do something similar to the whole country.
…after telling people not to go to Vegas because it’s a selfish thing to do, and basically bankrupting the city. Oh, and let’s not forget the private plane industry, that provides jobs from everyone from the people who make the little pieces that compose the engines and fuselage of the planes to the pilots who fly them.
Well for one thing, some large businesses do all the intermediate work on a product, like food producers that grow their own corn and product cereal. They would have an advantage over small farms which may get forced out of business. Also, it’s more paper work and intrusion of government into the inner workings of businesses. If they would repeal the income tax it might not be a bad idea though but that isn’t going to happen.
Then don’t watch it. Duh.
That’s a lot less BS than the other stations give every half hour.
Fox news is to journalism as pro wrestling is to legitimate athletics.
Oh yess, CNN is so “legitimate”….
aren’t they the ones who devote entire shows to things like Casey Anthony? for MONTHS at a time…oh yeah, now there’s some “journalism” for you.
Yes, because deflecting the accusation is sure to make you innocent.
Tyler: You alright, we learned it by watching you!!! (for all you 80′s children and Drug aDs)
-gets reference and laughs- Born in the nineties!
Tyler’s got a point. That doesn’t actually defend Fox News. In fact it just makes it sound like NMB can’t think of an actual defense of Fixed News.
Eric: You misspelled Fox… it’s F-O-X, not i but o.
Bottom line:
If people on welfare weren’t allowed to vote, and they sure as HELL shouldn’t be, Obama and most other so called democrats couldn’t get elected dog catcher.
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Quote by:
Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
If you go down that route, where do you stop? Should we stop people who don’t claim welfare, but don’t actually work, instead living on investment income, from voting? How about people like, say, stockbrokers and futures traders, who have jobs, but don’t actually generate wealth?
Why not go the whole hog, and stop everyone who doesn’t volunteer for government service, in the knowledge that they may find themselves as human lab rats in the Antarctic instead of, say, Navy vessel commenders or fighter pilots, and restrict the availability of government service jobs that will qualify you to vote so that, say, being a DMV clerk doesn’t make you a voter?
When someones ONLY reason for voting is to pick the guy who promises the most handouts for not working, they should not be allowed to vote, period.
If you live on investment INCOME, you’re living off YOUR money, NOT MINE, there’s a huge difference….DUH Do you think politicians would get paid as much as they do (for doing basically nothing) if they didn’t VOTE ON THEIR OWN PAY RAISES?
Same damn thing.
I see where you’re coming from, and we’ve got some common ground here, like about politicians’ pay packets.
Where I think we differ is that you’ve assumed that anyone who is claiming state benefits does so because they are of working age and don’t want to work, rather than because they can’t find work they are able to do or are over working age. Pretty much everyone I know who falls into the “not working and claiming benefits” category is in the “rather than…working age.” category.
Try McDonalds, like the rest of us with a work ethic did.
Go down to the average ghetto and try and find one person who has EVER worked a day in their life, good luck to you.
But thank God, they get 100% free health care, gotta make sure they can continue to reproduce as long as possible.
People who lose their jobs (males at least) get unemployment, not welfare, they EARNED the unemployment, it’s PAID for by their employers, it’s insurance, not a tax paid handout and it’s not easy to get and they shut you off after a few months. Someone who starts pumping out bastards at 14 never earned a damn thing and never will.
“Go down to the average ghetto and try and find one person who has EVER worked a day in their life, good luck to you.”
What the hell is an “average ghetto”? Because using a term that describes how the Nazis separated the Jews from the rest of humanity really forces your point across that the people who live there are “less”, right? For me, it just sets off a whole lot of red flags.
Anyway, saying someone who gives birth at 14 will never earn a damn thing is way too extreme, and completely illogical. There are plenty of mothers who will work hard to feed and support their children, they will be earning their living, don’t be an ass. If they’re “pumping out bastards” merely for the government benefits, then I agree with you somewhat. However, you’re coming across, to me at least, as too forceful, crude, and close-minded to really convince anyone too listen.
Here in the US, “ghetto” in this context doesn’t have any Nazi connotations. It’s pretty must just a synonym for “slum” or “hood”.
But, to be fair, it does have racial connotations, because blacks are ridiculously overrepresented in the poor and in the ghettos.
And of course, this being America, you’ll find people who immediately respond “racist” to any discussion of that, because (a) it’s a quick and easy way to shut someone up and (b) it lets them feel satisfied at fighting for social justice without having to actually worry about all the brown people.
Well, Dhoti, I know it doesn’t have the same Nazi connotations here, but it rung a bell in my head the way he used it “Go down to the average ghetto and try and find one person who has EVER worked a day in their life, good luck to you.”
It sounded like Hitler talking about the Jewish people to me. Trying to point out that he’s being a racist ass- not because it’ll make him shut up, but because he’s not right and that plenty of people living in the “ghetto” (by the way, I haven’t heard it used in a long time in Mass- not sure if we just dropped the word, or if it’s less common these days)
work very hard, regardless of what he thinks of them.
You don’t how hard they work any more than NO_MO_BAMA does, Tyler. Cite it.
I don’t *what* how hard they work?
Apologies, but I really don’t get the question.
I don’t know how hard all of the people living there work, but I DO know he just stereotyped them all.
Let me help you. Unless you live there or do social work, you don’t, and can’t, know how hard plenty of people work.
You sound like a know-nothing. Stop it.
He said plenty of people living in the ghetto work hard.
He didn’t say that every single person living in a ghetto works their ass off everyday. That’s obviously not true, because otherwise it wouldn’t be a ghetto if everyone had jobs.
Deep Thought, with a name like that, it’s expected you’ll read a little better.
Thank you, Mr. Igloo.
Define “plenty,” otherwise you’re just as guilty of generalizing, and you know it. You don’t even have anecdotal evidence to back you up here. The reason you haven’t heard “ghetto” is you’re so far removed from that life you have no idea what it’s about.
Oh, and feel free to blow me, igloo.
Don’t be vulgar.
Don’t be a doosh-bag, then.
Deep, don’t be an ass. I’ve heard the f*cking word, but I haven’t heard it said as much recently. That is what I meant.
Anyway, you’re the one who should stop being a “doosh-bag”, because no matter where it is there are going to be people working hard. You can’t say that everyone in a given area doesn’t work hard and just leeches off the government. You really need to think about the fact that we’re not arguing the word “plenty”- as in, quite a few. Because if you’re going to judge everyone in every ghetto neighborhood, then you had damn sure better meet every single one of them rather than making the generalizations NO_MO_OBAMA has made and I’ve protested here.
Protesting louder and longer doesn’t make you right.
It makes you look like a sucker.
-Giggles at having “longer and louder” and “sucker” in the same sentence-
Well, DT, I just can’t help wanting to make him less of an ass :/
I get you. Devil’s advocate, and such.
*punches shoulder*
-Dies from Shoulder Tetanus-
Wait, you’re Sauron, right DT?
Funny, I’ve never seen any white people working at ANY establishment on Martin Luther King Blvd. (probably in any city, but Milwaukee/Racine specifically), although to be honest I’m pretty terrified to go there and I only went through once when I was lost.
So to say that NO ONE in the ghetto works is ignorant, they have fast food, liquor stores, cigarette depots, gas stations, and the employees there are mostly the same ethnicity as the residents of said ghetto.
Some of them are working.
…not to mention those people you see at the bus stops at 6 am, leaving the “ghetto” to go work lowpaying jobs as hotel maids, fast food workers, dishwashers, “light industrial” stuff…. it’s quite possible to work a full week at a lowpaying job and yet not make enough to move to a nicer, safer neighborhood. And, yes, I’m well aware that some of these people also make purchasing decisions of questionable value (e.g., spinners
), so we don’t really need to cover that.
This is the same guy who doesn’t think women should vote. He (because I’m hoping it’s not a female) has absolutely no idea about the current state of the world. People in “ghettoes” don’t get free health care and many do work at minimum wage jobs to support their families. Why don’t YOU go down to a ghetto and see what it’s like to live in areas with that much violence, discrimination, and poverty. The reason these people are still in ghettoes is because they don’t make enough money to leave these terrible areas.
And Tyler, ghetto is a word people use to describe bad neighborhoods. When bigots use it though, it’s basically a word for (imaginary) neighborhoods where blacks, latinos, and illegal immigrants take money from the government.
I know, Igloo. It just rung a bell with me that he sounded like Hitler talking down about Jews, and wanted to call him out on the sheer racism.
That’s what the word was about.
By crying “racism” you just fell into his trap, danced to his tune, succumbed to his whims.
You’re smarter than that.
Racist jackass…
Thank you!
Why? It’s true, for ghetto-dwellers of any color.
Quit crying racism. We all know what “ghetto” means, and it’s not like there is any other term that applies in this context — should he say “go down to the average government-subsidized housing complex?”
Because the word “ghetto” has racial implications, at least to me. It’s been quite a while, and for some reason his definition came across to me as “a neighborhood where people of a different color than me sit around lazily, commit crimes and steal all the government’s money.”
Quite a while since I heard the word used*
I hear “hood” more often around here; but I’d say it’s got the same implications.
…or “Go down to the three blocks of substandard, dilapidated housing that I bought on the cheap and get subsidized rent checks every month for from the government while refusing to perform even basic maintenance for my tenants”?
Al Gore? Is that you?
*is hurt* *checks mirror*
Nope, not Al Bore.
Trust me, Dhoti….there’s still plenty of slumlords trying to milk as much money as they can out of Section 8 rentals as there ever were (not that everyone who rents Section 8 is a terrible landlord, and I’m sure some of their tenants suck…).
Oh, definitely — and there are plenty of non-slumlords doing the same thing. (See “apartment, Manhattan”.) But since we know that some (and I don’t know how many) of the tenants are going to be sucky, does that mean it’s a general practice? I wouldn’t be surprised, but I honestly don’t know.
I don’t know, it just struck me that the poster who originally made the “go down to the ghetto” comment seemed like the type of person who would both 1) Be a slumlord of that type and 2) complain heartily about “government handouts” while skipping cheerfully to the bank to deposit their Section 8 rent checks. So when we were discussing how properly to refer to that part of town….
(Oh, and I don’t know about where you live, but I recently noticed that you can get houses in really poor neighborhoods in my city for under 10k (prob. mostly foreclosures), which if they were at all tenable would make for one hell of a profit margin on rents.)
And when is the last time you went “down to the average ghetto”? Do me a super huge favor. Why don’t you go do that today and tell all those people about their work ethics. Then come back here and let us know how that went.
Please also video that and post to youtube.
Oh yeah, forgot that part. I’m sure if he tells him he’s doing a documentary on lazy welfare recipients they’ll be happy to cooperate.
Might I suggest Martin Luther King Blvd.?
Look for the MS13 sprays, those folks will be sure to give you their opinion.
In ANY metropolitan area. I have a feeling that learning (posthumously) the fact that all the streets named after him are normally in the worst parts of town would give him something of a headache.
***Looking across Anacostia River*** Nope no bombs. ***opens window*** (BANG! BANG!!) Nope no thanks still shooting.
No_MO: I see what you’re saying, but that goes against the principles of our founding fathers and what they wanted. EVERYONE who is a law abiding (except speeders) citizen in this country has the RIGHT (not priviledge but RIGHT) to vote. It’s in the constitution, so my thought is we need to live with it. It sucks, but once again, it’s like the 1st Amendment. We have to tolerate abuse, but we must take the good with the bad (just like the Liberals need to BACK OFF the 2nd Amendment).
It’s not a right. It’s a duty.
Damn straight.
Actually, that gives me an idea. How about this? Register everyone to vote for free, but they lose the right to vote ever again if they fail to vote in 3 elections in a row.
That doesn’t seem very democratic to me. You shouldn’t “loose your license.” I think that if someone doesn’t vote, they just shouldn’t complain about the current state of the country.
What makes the right to vote interesting is that we also have the right not to vote. Even though I think everyone who can, should, I believe that we not only have a choice in who we vote for but whether we vote at all.
im not sure how a license can be loose… is there a tight license?
I’ll tell ya, my driver’s license is TIGHT!
No, actually, it’s pretty freaking lame.
You can only have a loose license in Nevada.
And only outside of Vegas… hmmm Bunny Ranch…. I like their ears!!
If you bend them just right they’re excellent sackshades.
I forgot that spelling mistakes get you crucified on this board…. That’s a joke of course. I deserved that.
Actually I think that only land owners were allowed to vote in the begining, male land owners that is. So our founders didn’t really intend for everyone to vote.
Please note- Only WHITE male land owners!
It went even further than just male land owners!
Felons can’t vote so there goes that argument, you can say that certain people aren’t allowed to vote because of something they did (or in this case, what they DON’T do) Women weren’t allowed to vote till 1920 so the founding fathers had it right
When blacks finally got the right to vote, most of them worked too. Then the liberals invented welfare.
When this country was founded, everyone worked one way or another and it’s safe to say they never imagined it turning into what it has.
“Women weren’t allowed to vote till 1920 so the founding fathers had it right”
Wow. Just wow.
I hate people who take advantage of the system, but that comment is completely ignorant. Welfare is a noble idea, we want to make sure that Americans aren’t starving and dying in the streets like they do in the third world. The problem is, we don’t make sure the people deserve the benefits or give them incentive to earn their own way. Welfare should be HARDER than working for an honest living. They should be required to do many hours of volunteer work of whatever type they are capable, etc.
Agreed. That comment was WAY out of line. Just because some guys back in the 1770′s didn’t come up with the idea that women were equal, in a time when that idea would be considered EXTREMELY radical and have caused huge problems, doesn’t mean they were *right*, especially by today’s standards. If I argue that we should follow the Native Americans’ laws because they were from before 1920 and *right* does that mean we’re all going to follow them? No, it doesn’t.
And your argument that felons aren’t allowed to vote therefore ILPB is incorrect is disproven by the fact that he has ALREADY stated in the comment you are responding to “EVERYONE who is a law abiding (except speeders) citizen in this country has the RIGHT (not priviledge but RIGHT) to vote.”
Did you see the LAW ABIDING in there, or were you just not reading carefully enough?
… and everyone dances like a good little marionette.
Sheesh, people, don’t you know Poe’s attorney when you see him?
Sorry…your a racist AND sexist jackass…
*you’re
Are all of your arguments this simplistic or is just this one especially ill-informed?
Get back in the kitchen, woman! Just because you’re allowed to vote doesn’t mean you get to have an opinion!
Hey, you two women get off the internet, stop having opinions, make me a pie, and prepare to fulfill my sexual desires!
*sheepish whisper* Please?
Can’t help you, I’m in the kitchen inventing welfare.
I think NO_MO_BAMA has tripped over his janitor bucket one time too may.
Has he mentioned the Kennedys yet?
so basicly “if you don’t agree with me don’t vote”…interesting…so you’re saying my father who is DISABLED and physically CAN NOT work should not be allowed to vote simply because he broke his back when I was 3 and now can’t work? Good gods where did they build you mister robot? And why did they forget to include a soul?
There is a maxim in marketing that, when you’re the dominant brand, you don’t attack the pretenders to your throne. You don’t even acknowledge them; that just gives them credibility.
Take Coca-Cola. When have they EVER mentioned Pepsi or any other cola drink in their century-plus of operation?
Budweiser, on the hand, shot themselves in the foot when they responded to Miller ads attacking them by running attack ads of their own.
So folks, how does this apply to the faction/party that currently controls every governmental of any significance at the federal, except the military, in this country? The obsession that Obama, the Congressional Democrats, the media, and lefties in general all the way down to you people at the bottom, have with such key power-brokers as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly (who self-identifies as an independent) suggests that you’re not secure in your victory – that you don’t feel like you solidly earned it and that it could evaporate like a psilocybin dream at any moment…
Very interesting.
I agree to a certain extent, but I think the fascination with Limbaugh and O’Reilly is more on the part of the rest of the media than on the part of Obama or Congressional Democrats. The only time I’ve heard any of them mention Limbaugh was in response to a question posed by a reporter about something Limbaugh said. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard any prominent Democrat mention Bill O’Reilly at all, unless you count other pundits such as Keith Olbermann.
I think the problem is that the rest of the (I hate to use this phrase, but…) mainstream media is obsessed with Limbaugh and O’Reilly because they are successful. But here’s the thing, neither are successful because they’re journalists, but rather because they’re entertainers. There’s very little that’s informative about either of their shows. In fact, most of the television “news” is heading in this direction, mostly because TV news is now on 24 hours a day, and because the nightly news now competes with Jeopardy and Seinfeld reruns. Real news is dry and boring, and it only appeals to a small, niche audience. So the corporations in charge try to “spice things up” to bring in more viewers, and then you end up with people like Glenn Beck, who brings in a bunch of viewers who watch not because they’re learning about what is happening in our country and world, but because they’re glued to their seats waiting to hear what crazy thing he’s going to say next. And then those people vote.
Word to your mother.
Alas, the only person who has the physical capacity to accurately depict the amount of BS per Faux Noise hour is Stretch Armstrong.
How about Mr Fantastic?
“The mainstream media is generally conservative”
I laffed.
Because it’s true? Outside of MSNBC, which I’d argue is more centered around being critical and progressive and than being liberal, most reporters and news networks lean to the right.
the claim by most liberals that the ‘reporters and news networks lean to the right’ always cracks me up. review the 2008 election and tell me which ‘reporters and networks’ were backing john mccain. we all know that fox has conservative pundits that did, but name ANYONE from msnbc, cnn, or etc. mccain was probably the most left leaning republic in the party and still he got NO support from the media…
.
go back to your igloo.
We heard a million accusations of sexism every time Palin was attacked, but when Clinton claimed sexism we usually heard stuff like she was “too weak to defend herself against the big boys.” There are dozens of extremely radical conservative talking heads and very, very few on the other side of the spectrum. Even on talk shows that claim to give both sides of the news the right side is way more represented.
At least the people who are liberal (like Olbermann) are critical of democrats. O’Reilly usually bashes people for not being conservative enough….
could it just possibly be that you agree with the extremely radical liberal talking heads and therefore don’t consider them to be “extremely radical”?
.
and here’s some fact checking for ya: name your ‘dozens of extremely radical conservative’ talking heads and the last time you actually heard any one of them say something… and no, i’m not talking about stuff you heard on cnn, msnbc, or other media outlets, but actual times you’ve heard what they’ve said.
I’m not sure how you want me to hear what these conservatives said without using a media outlet, since I don’t have the resources available to go to every conservative’s house and asking them to talk to me. We have to use media outlets-whether it’s tv, radio, newspapers.
But here’s one that caught my eye. This guy named Michael Scheuer (I did have to look up his name) was talking to Glen Beck about how America has to be attacked by terrorists so that Obama will start “protecting America.” Right wing (not necessarily republican) assholes show up on news networks and just spout this kind of stuff without being held to the same standard that the radical liberals (if a democrat said that, you can bet he would be crucified on the news).
hahahaha….*chortle*, cough…choke…dry heave. Seriously? reporters….lean…right? Logic error…does not compute!!!!
Im sorta outside the political circles – but I have noticed that liberal outlets seem to have a difficult time not “speaking” about GWB, Sarah Palin, and FoxNews. Im mean some of the jokes are chuckle worthy now and then, but recently it has gotten really tired. You know like you expecting someone to say something along the lines of…
“I think the introduction of this new bill is going to move the country in a positive direction, and Palin licks FoxNews kawk when Dubya isnt looking.”
… just out of the blue, and everyone will be hoping up and down about it being brilliant. I can only lift an eyebrow and lean away in concerned confusion to recent liberal humor, wondering if people have taken their meds or not that day. A lot of butthurt and finger pointing from a political party that essentially has the numbers to get away with anything.
Nice strawman there.
‘The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. A goal of taxation should be to remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.’
- Adam Smith
I’m just waiting for someone to scream SOCIALIST at you… /sigh.
Nice quote though, it was a nice, direct read. I liked the way he wrote it.
Did he mean the support of the “state” government or the “federal” government? Because there is a huge difference there… If he means state then I agree. If he means feds, then no…
Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations” before there even was a USA (first published March 9th 1776). At that time “state” would be a synonym of “nation”, but his intent would have been to cover the totality of city, county, state and federal taxes in modern US terminology. Rather than make a meal of the semantics of how a book applies to a nation that didn’t even exist, can we accept the principle that he meant that taxation should be progressive with income and then drop it?
Wow. There’s some serious douchebaggery going on in this thread. I’m exhausted already and I haven’t even finished my coffee!
I’m exhausted already and I just woke up a few minutes ago, SB.
Man I could use a good sleep-in. Ah well, the weekend’s not far off now…and I don’t have to work on Friday
*does a little dance*
I have the summer.
Oh yeah…well I’m legal drinking age! So nyah!
Blarg! Well I’m…..
Sexing age! So nyah! (really, 16 = legal for anything in Mass)
*frowns*
I have a job AND I have to work Friday.
*makes a little love*
*gets down tonight!*
Yeah, I was about to join in when I realised what a beast of a comments page it is… Couldn’t even be bothered reading it…
It’s like wrestling a lion.
In the nude.
Who’s nude, you or the lion?
Tyler is. The lion has more modesty than that.
Don’t be silly. I’m ALWAYS nude. Of course it’s me.
Well then watch your nether region against that mane, it chaffes… so I’ve been told.
Don’t be silly- the only thing getting chafed from one another’s manes brushing here will be HIS mane. My man-mane tends to chafe even the toughest lion chins.
Hold on, I think I just made myself sick.
Oh good. It’s not just me.
I don’t get this, what do the CEO of Hewlett-Packard and Fox news have in common?
Did someone just take a random picture and use it to poke fun at a news channel that noone with a brain cares about one way or another?
I’ll take that as a “Yes”.
thats kinda what I was thinking too. Don’t feel like looking it up on google right now or I’d tell you
I tried that, there isn’t anything about this connection. I found a broken link from the fox news website about information on Mark Hurd, that’s it.
This might be the worst submission I have ever seen on these sites, and that is really saying something.
media is biased.
politicians lie.
people on pk are naive to think differently.
.
‘the difference between a fence and a prison depends on which side you’re standing on.’
Oh brother, yawn and fail. I didn’t think it was physically possible, but these lols both suck AND blow.
I had a ShopVac once that could do that. Not at the same time, though.
‘First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren’t necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn’t mean you’re willing to kill.’
- George W Bush
if you actually read the rest of the quote you’ll understand the point he’s trying to make…
.
“And so it’s important to understand, you know, people are susceptible to the recruitment by these extremists, but I refuse to, you know, put a — kind of, put killers into a demographic category based upon income. After all a lot of the top Al Qaida people were comfortable, middle class citizens. And so one of the things you’ve got to do is to make sure we distinguish between hate and poverty.” – gwb
That’s easy for him to say.
Same with this quotation. Context is everything
‘And so as I was telling David Hume beware of socialists, they say crazy stuff like the subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. A goal of taxation should be to remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.’ – adam smith
Wow, that’s only half as much as all the other media sources combined
Combined? If FOX news makes up for 1/3 of the world media’s BS, then I’m impressed. Then again, what you meant to say was as any other news source, and I won’t even TOUCH that one. It’d be feeding the trolls and using my head as bait.
All media is biased depending on your viewpoint. “Lying” and leaning a certain way on the political spectrum are different things. For instance Fox covered the firing of the IG, MSNBC didn’t. When Bush was in office, MSNBC covered stories of him firing people in his administration. So yes, if you are left, Fox is very biased. If you are right (like me) MSNBC and CNN are very biased. You can’t have a single viewpoint in the media, and Fox (like it or not) is the only major right leaning news network. And in case you didn’t know MSNBC is left leaning. I’m sure a lot of people could say the very same about MSNBC.
That’s very well stated, Andy. Unfortunately some people, overrepresented on the intertubez, are so far to the left that even that which is objectively left-of-center looks right-wing to them. Of course you could probably find examples of the same thing in the other direction, but so far not in the mainstream (you’d have to look to Stormfront or WBC or something); extremism seems to be becoming the mainstream on the left.
It’s so sad that there is so little truly objective journalism left. As much as I enjoy watching some nice liberal news, it still bugs me as a former student of journalism who had it pounded into my head in high school and college that you must. remain. objective. Now, clearly, as human beings, pure objectivity is unrealistic. But wouldn’t it be nice if they TRIED at least?
And another thing, how far the news outlets lean is completely a matter of perception. We could argue till the end of time how far left or right CNN leans, but who can really judge such a thing definitively? I always say Fox News is severely right leaning, but I know good and well that as a liberal my liberal bias probably skews that. So essentially, it comes down to the news outlets are biased, but compared to WHAT. That’s the real question.
Try being libertarian (which isn’t even on the same spectrum) and not having your own leaning represented anywhere. And I don’t mean Maher-style, who is just a leftist.
However, it does give you an outsider perspective to see more clearly where the “middle” is and which way something leans. There are lots of ways to divide up the leanings, but a good benchmark is collectivist versus individualist. There are many different ways to be collectivist (that all amount to pretty much the same thing – less liberty and more government) but very few ways to be individualist.
I guess I fall under collectivist. I don’t trust people to govern themselves very well. LOL Buuuuuut, that’s a whole other argument that I’m not ABOUT to get into now.
Wasn’t it you who said leftists had fine morals and could be trusted to control themselves without any kind of external controls on such? Forgive me if that was someone else, but I thought it was you.
But “Nyet, Tovarisch was always something they wanted their *neighbors* to stop doing, never themselves.” We generally trust ourselves; so few trust others to themselves. But that’s what the constitution is SUPPOSED to protect; the right to govern oneself. {shrug} I know you said you weren’t getting into it; I don’t consider that going very deep, though.
Oh I said we had morals. But that doesn’t apply to everybody. Most of us are generally good people, and that goes for both sides of the political fence (and right down the middle of course).
However, not for Tyler. Eric? Sure. I have the morals of an evil giraffe…
Ah god, how I love to interject.
lol. OMG I FEEL SO LIBERAL RIGHT NOW GAIS.
Ask yourself this question. Do you have any opinions you’d be afraid to bring up in most social situations?
If the answer is yes, this means you are a closed minded conformist who can’t afford to risk their ideology in open debate.
Democraps hate Fox News because Fox tells the truth.
The number one enemy of liberalism is the truth.
“because Fox tells the truth.”
Bwahahahahahahaha
Reality fail
Severe reality fail, and Democraps is just an unnecessary insult that reveals how rude and judgmental he already is. It’s just repetitive.
Yep. Demo and craps is indeed repetitive.
Nice insult, but making smart-ass comments to twist my words isn’t earning you any respect. Nor is mocking the other side of the aisle helpful to your country.
Agreed.
That’s why nearly every scientist and economist of note has been liberal (and self described themselves that way).
Yes, I can name one of note – von Mises. In fact, he wrote the original treatise “Liberalism”, which has nothing to do with leftism except to point out what an anti-liberty philosophy socialism and leftism actually are. You leave us alone and we promise to leave you alone.
Let’s see if we can put actual, classical liberalism into easy perspective – that is, the one that’s actually rooted in LIBERTY. Take a gander at this video and you’ll get the hint real quick. Link. That’s liberalism, and many, many great statesmen, economists (from Hayek to von Mises to the current Austrians) and scientists embrace it. Deal.
what’s BS?
Fox News is 10% ‘mistakes’ (Governor Sanford -D), 30% contradictory (Ashlee Simpson gets knocked up, her parents are pinheads; Bristow Palin gets knocked up, her parents are wonderful and understanding), 40% scare tactics (Obama fist bump? Is that a terrorist hand signal?) and 20% news stolen from legitimate news sources.
Cites for your numbers?
Aw Froo, let them approximate for themselves
The “Terrorist Fist Bump” was one of my favorites. Pure class.
People could say a lot worse about MSNBC.
People could say a lot worse about anything.
Doesn’t make any of it true, though.
jeff, this is the political crap section, this is the place to post that stuff.
Panty waste = clitty litter.
You CBS, NBC Fox is the only one telling the truth SCREW OFF LIBERAL ASS
Funny, I found twice as much BS in one NY Times article…
Fox definitely does screw up sometimes (Governor Sandford-D), but that doesn’t really justify what this is saying. Just because they don’t agree with the ideals of Obama and others doesn’t mean that they make shit up for the almighty dollar, because of racism or so that they’ll gain supporters.
Fox News is geared towards Americans. Pure Americans. The only reason they’re “evil” in the media is that they don’t suck up to Obama and the government.