FOX NEWS IS SICKENING! [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

NJ Stinks

11-22-2011, 06:44 PM

The bias on this station never ceases to amaze me.

Yesterday, President Obama signed the Put The Veterans Back To Work bill. The bi-partisan bill's signing ceremony was shown live on CNN and MSNBC at around 4:00pm. Although FOX News knows how to wave the flag better than Stalin and although FOX News claims to honor our soldiers' sacrifices more than any other station, Fox News declined to broadcast the signing ceremony. FOX decided instead to stick with their eternal BS that it's Obama's fault that the Supercommittee failed. As if Obama being in DC would have convinced the GOP to do anything different.

Today it's the Obama doesn't care about national security theme since defense spending may be slashed because the super committee could not come to an agreement. What president doesn't understand security is job one this late in his presidency, asks the Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine.

I'm more convinced than ever that only a moron can watch FOX News and believe what they are watching.

ArlJim78

11-22-2011, 07:32 PM

boxcar

11-22-2011, 08:41 PM

Hey, NJ, if tax credits are sooooo good for Veterans, how come tax credits wouldn't help the rest of us, too?

Social Engineering via the tax code sucks raw eggs! :ThmbDown:

Are you aware of the fact that there are so many targeted tax credits floating around out there, that "normal", everyday human beings who are actually qualified for jobs are probably losing many of them because the deck is stacked against them? Companies don't have any tax incentives to hire such people -- people who wish to be productive again, as they used to be. Instead, tax credits (and I kid you not!) go for jailbirds, rehab folks, welfare junkies, etc, etc. These are the kinds of people the government wants corporations to hire. This is the government's way of leveling the playing field? If so, what incentive do the "normal" people have to not take the same slide down the social scale to be on par with the "tax credit" hires? This might be their only recourse if they hope to get hired someday. :rolleyes:

Gotta love it when the State Almighty gets to pick winners and losers.

Boxcar

sammy the sage

11-22-2011, 09:01 PM

and ya'll think Fox is bad...wait for THE gesture... :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rhESdfIlAO8

sammy the sage

11-22-2011, 09:08 PM

meanwhile back too the original topic...some thoughts on Fox mis-leading reporting...smart guy tells way better than I...

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/super-tuesday-committee-failure-so-what

Robert Goren

11-22-2011, 09:08 PM

So Boxcar, you don't veterans deserve a special treatment?

boxcar

11-22-2011, 09:16 PM

So Boxcar, you don't veterans deserve a special treatment?

And you don't think everyone deserves equal treatment? Isn't that what the OWS is all about? Or you haven't been able to figure out their purpose either? :rolleyes:

When it comes to jobs, everyone deserves "special treatment". Who's next? Special treatment for retired firefighters? For retired police officers?

Boxcar

woodtoo

11-22-2011, 09:30 PM

and ya'll think Fox is bad...wait for THE gesture... :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rhESdfIlAO8

She did that so naturally like she's known him forever :D

JustRalph

11-22-2011, 09:31 PM

:sleeping:

My apologies to cj

Robert Goren

11-22-2011, 09:54 PM

And you don't think everyone deserves equal treatment? Isn't that what the OWS is all about? Or you haven't been able to figure out their purpose either? :rolleyes:

When it comes to jobs, everyone deserves "special treatment". Who's next? Special treatment for retired firefighters? For retired police officers?

Boxcar I think that people who served our country deserve more than a parade or a "thanks for your service" at an airport. Do I think they deserve better deal than somebody that has not served in the military. Yes, I do. Furthermore,I really don't understand people who don't.
Obviously you haven't clue about what the OWS movement is about. How dare you put those jerks that run Wall Street on the plain as our Veterans. One veteran is worth 10,000 stock traders.

Tom

11-22-2011, 11:05 PM

Well, to FOX, this mindless rant by NJ has to be a sign that they are doing a good job. FOX chose to cover the MAJOR story of the day - one in which the president and the congress sold out America for their own political gains. I bet NJ rally thought the Super Committee was going to try to accomplish something! :lol::lol::lol:

JustRalph

11-22-2011, 11:05 PM

How dare you put those jerks that run Wall Street on the plain as our Veterans. One veteran is worth 10,000 stock traders.

What an incredible thing to say......what an incredible generalization to make

People are individuals. End of story. This is why you are becoming a caricature. You really believe this way? if so, I feel sorry for you.........

NJ Stinks

11-22-2011, 11:29 PM

Curious, did you purposely tune in to Fox to see if they were being fair and balanced? or are you one of the millions of morons who watch on a regular basis?

also, is this the best example of bias you can come up with, Fox not covering this bill? you don't detect any other networks that don't cover major issues for partisan reasons? have you no watched any of the debates and the laughably partisan "moderators"?

hint: Solyndra, Fast and furious , etc. where is the coverage?

Yep. But that's not the only reason I turn on FOX News. I like to watch The Five. Bob Beckel is a riot fending off the four! :cool:

I've tried to watch the debates but can't leave them on very long.

As for Solyndra, if investing in alternative energy in an attempt to get the country off oil results in some setbacks along the way, so be it. We should keep investing. I believe most Americans agree - therefore, not much outrage except for political reasons IMO.

Fast and Furious was total disaster. Anybody who reads a newspaper or watches the news has heard all about it IMO.

boxcar

11-22-2011, 11:35 PM

I think that people who served our country deserve more than a parade or a "thanks for your service" at an airport. Do I think they deserve better deal than somebody that has not served in the military. Yes, I do. Furthermore,I really don't understand people who don't.
Obviously you haven't clue about what the OWS movement is about. How dare you put those jerks that run Wall Street on the plain as our Veterans. One veteran is worth 10,000 stock traders.

You put them there, I didn't. But you're right about one thing: I really don't know what a motley bunch of misfits, miscreants and malcontents who can't put two coherent sentences together want -- except maybe free lunches for the rest of their lives and equal outcomes. So, since they want equal outcomes, then should not everyone be treated equally? A really good place to start would be with various forms of corporate welfare so that everyone in the job market is playing on a level field. Besides, those Veterans deserve to be running in much better company than with welfare junkies, ex-cons, drug addicts, etc. Why would anyone want to drag a Veteran down to that level of company? Talk about a drop in class... :rolleyes: :ThmbDown:

Boxcar

johnhannibalsmith

11-22-2011, 11:47 PM

Yep. But that's not the only reason I turn on FOX News. I like to watch The Five. Bob Beckel is a riot fending off the four! :cool:

I've become a fan of this show too. One of the few I try to tune in for. Seemed like a hodgepodge mess the first few times I caught it but really has become a show I enjoy... in large part because of Beckel.

As for Solyndra, if investing in alternative energy in an attempt to get the country off oil results in some setbacks along the way, so be it. We should keep investing. I believe most Americans agree - therefore, not much outrage except for political reasons IMO.

Come on. You really think that this was absolutely just an honest attempt at investing in alternatives? Not possibly at best an irresponsible blunder at making a square peg fit in a round hole, and maybe even a contrived decimation of otherwise useful tax base to promote political agenda or even flat out cronyism? It just seems if you are going to scream bloody hell about raising revenues the hard way you should at least entertain the outrage over expenditures that sure look like urine.

ElKabong

11-23-2011, 12:12 AM

NJ,

This is shocking to media professionals such as Mary Mapes and Dan Rather! FOX has to go!

bigmack

11-23-2011, 12:24 AM

SmelloNJ lags in many areas. He hasn't received word yet that whining about Fox is so 2002. But it does my heart good to know he finds things he disagrees with SICKENING without even realizing how his brain is being manipulated.

The complexity of his thought on issues, combined with that of Goren, would fit easily on one side of a cocktail napkin written with a bold felt tip pen.

Not a bright couple o' guys.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhwiilQoe81qe0eclo1_r1_500.gif

toetoe

11-23-2011, 01:45 AM

... I believe most Americans agree ...

Two things --- please pass that roach down this way, and never make it about whether the majority agree. Fer Christ's sake, yer a lefty ! Ya tell 'em what's best for them. End of story !

toetoe

11-23-2011, 01:47 AM

BlueShoe

11-23-2011, 09:12 AM

But that's not the only reason I turn on FOX News. I like to watch The Five. Bob Beckel is a riot fending off the four!.
Beckel is just another left wing buffoon that belongs on MSNBC, not Fox. About the only positive thing about him is that he is not nearly as bad as Alan Colmes, whose job it seems to be, as the house Bolshevik, is to infuriate Fox viewers with his constant stream of Marxist/Leninist rhetoric. As for The Five; bring back Glen Beck.

Tom

11-23-2011, 10:02 AM

Dammit, Mac, you're creeping me out with those two!
Reminds me of staff meetings where I used to work!

DJofSD

11-23-2011, 10:31 AM

Here ya go, NJS, just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEbZqvMu2cQ&feature=related

DJofSD

11-23-2011, 10:34 AM

Dammit, Mac, you're creeping me out with those two!
Reminds me of staff meetings where I used to work!
Those two guys could be supporting actors on Justified.

Tom

11-23-2011, 11:21 AM

I just realized who they are......the SUPER COMMITTEE!!!!! Woo Hoo!
The guy on the right is counting the savings.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-23-2011, 11:24 AM

I don't see why there should be more than two news networks, esp. cable news networks, covering an event, esp. a mere bill signing ceremony. I'm certain CNN, MSMBC & FOX are basic cable channels in most regions of the country, viewers who get one likely get all three. I don't think all the Major Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) cover basic things like routine Presidential Speeches anymore, haven't for at least a decade that I recall. Now, a bin Laden capture, sure, they'll all be covering it. But the ordinary stuff of presidents doesn't get a plethora of simultaneous coverage anymore. I don't see the point. They'll report it of course, but no need to have another crew covering the same thing.

ArlJim78

11-23-2011, 11:50 AM

2/3's of the Pappy O'Daniel second term "braintrust"

Ocala Mike

11-23-2011, 12:33 PM

johnhannibalsmith

11-23-2011, 12:48 PM

Better to watch no news at all than Fox, according to this survey. Caveat: NJ people were polled. Wonder if they asked NJSTINKS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-less-informed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html?ref=mostpopular

Ocala Mike

Wow thats one of the funniest "articles" I've ever read.

"Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson, explained in a statement, "Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News. Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all." "

Got that folks, don't watch the news and you have a better chance of knowing about what's happenin in Egypt than if you do watch FOX news.

I'm not much of a defender of any news channel, but it sounds to me like perhaps his conclusion should be that the people he polled that do watch FOX news either are extremely stupid or watch the non-news segments. How could anyone possibly be less likely to know about what happens in a far off land simply because they watched one network over no network?

:confused: :lol:

badcompany

11-23-2011, 12:55 PM

Beckel is just another left wing buffoon that belongs on MSNBC, not Fox. About the only positive thing about him is that he is not nearly as bad as Alan Colmes, whose job it seems to be, as the house Bolshevik, is to infuriate Fox viewers with his constant stream of Marxist/Leninist rhetoric. As for The Five; bring back Glen Beck.

Beckel is an astute political analyst, but, is a complete moron on economics. The dope actually believes that the stimulus wasn't big enough and that the government needs to spend TRILLIONS more.

Kimberly Guilfoyle is smokin' hot.

Tom

11-23-2011, 01:53 PM

I never thought anything could be dumber than Fox and Friends in the morning.

Then came The Five.........:faint:

NJ Stinks

11-23-2011, 02:37 PM

NJ Stinks

11-23-2011, 02:43 PM

Fer Christ's sake, yer a lefty ! Ya tell 'em what's best for them. End of story !

Except righties tell us we should be in church on Sunday, pro-choice is not an option, gays can't marry, gambling is sinful, etc.

NJ Stinks

11-23-2011, 02:47 PM

Here ya go, NJS, just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEbZqvMu2cQ&feature=related

Thanks, DJ! :D

(Got to give George props for non-use of a telepromptor.)

NJ Stinks

11-23-2011, 02:50 PM

NJ Stinks

11-23-2011, 02:53 PM

Wow thats one of the funniest "articles" I've ever read.

"Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson, explained in a statement, "Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News. Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all." "

Got that folks, don't watch the news and you have a better chance of knowing about what's happenin in Egypt than if you do watch FOX news.

I'm not much of a defender of any news channel, but it sounds to me like perhaps his conclusion should be that the people he polled that do watch FOX news either are extremely stupid or watch the non-news segments. How could anyone possibly be less likely to know about what happens in a far off land simply because they watched one network over no network?

:confused: :lol:

Still, even if the professor didn't make a lot of sense, that headline in the Huff Post could have been written by a Murdoch tabloid it was so good! :lol:

Here it is again:

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study

Robert Goren

11-23-2011, 03:11 PM

Still, even if the professor didn't make a lot of sense, that headline in the Huff Post could have been written by a Murdoch tabloid it was so good! :lol:

Here it is again:

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: StudyAnd They Are Proud Of IT

DJofSD

11-23-2011, 03:21 PM

And They Are Proud Of IT
You must be one happy fella.

toetoe

11-23-2011, 05:47 PM

Except righties tell us we should be in church on Sunday, pro-choice is not an option, gays can't marry, gambling is sinful, etc.

Everything is an option, O Great Kahuna. We rightwing racists just believe in consequences. If the wonderfully euphemistic southpaw construction pro-choice means hacking out a fetus, it is indeed an option. I just want it to have consequences beyond Mom's slight case of post-almost-partum blues.

Perverters of the dominant paradigm may do whatever they want, including have babies (not sure how that works). Just don't tell me about it. Don't charge me for it. Don't tell me it's normal or the equivalent of a skin tone.

Ascribing to us views that we don't hold shows that you have middle school level debating skills, which puts you in the 99 percentile of your omniscient goodfighting ilk. Ascribe away. Here's a shocker --- stay out of church or go in; as you like. Gamble if you feel like gambling. Abstain (now there's a dirty word --- sorry ... :blush: ) if you prefer to abstain.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-23-2011, 11:53 PM

Abstain (now there's a dirty word --- sorry ... :blush: ) if you prefer to abstain.

I've been wondering how to get those ab stains out of my shirts.

delayjf

11-24-2011, 09:43 PM

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study

The love how the left always feels the need to reinforce their perception that theirs is the superior intellect. I wonder what channel the Occupy Wall street crowd watches - now there are some intellectuals.

lsbets

11-24-2011, 09:48 PM

Except righties tell us we should be in church on Sunday, pro-choice is not an option, gays can't marry, gambling is sinful, etc.

I assume you consider me a righty. Am I correct?

NJ Stinks

11-24-2011, 09:58 PM

I assume you consider me a righty. Am I correct?

Most of the time but definitely not always.

lsbets

11-24-2011, 10:54 PM

Most of the time but definitely not always.

You have a cartoonish view of anyone who does not ascribe to your big government, anti freedom belief system. Your description of the right is laughable.

NJ Stinks

11-25-2011, 12:13 AM

You have a cartoonish view of anyone who does not ascribe to your big government, anti freedom belief system. Your description of the right is laughable.

Always a pleasure to answer your questions.

PaceAdvantage

11-25-2011, 09:01 PM

Always a pleasure to answer your questions.He was deadly accurate though in his assessment.

NJ Stinks

11-25-2011, 09:24 PM

He was deadly accurate though in his assessment.

Let's hope it's not deadly.

Robert Goren

11-25-2011, 11:05 PM

You have a cartoonish view of anyone who does not ascribe to your big government, anti freedom belief system. Your description of the right is laughable. What is cartoonish is the idea that the right doesn't believe in big government. They just believe that the government should do different things than the left, not less.

Tom

11-25-2011, 11:29 PM

What is cartoonish is the idea that the right doesn't believe in big government. They just believe that the government should do different things than the left, not less.

Say what?????

lsbets

11-26-2011, 12:04 AM

What is cartoonish is the idea that the right doesn't believe in big government. They just believe that the government should do different things than the left, not less.

Bullshit. The religious right believes in big government, but they do not represent the whole of the "right". Of course understanding that requires much more nuanced thought than you have demonstrated here.

lamboguy

11-26-2011, 03:33 AM

i suggest you give up FOX and turn your internet on to the NANCY and MARK analysis of MOUNTAINEER RACETRACK. its a bit more informative

raybo

11-26-2011, 04:37 AM

Any time someone says something absolutely stupid, and say they got it from "the news", I ask them which news report they saw it on. Invariably, it's Fox.

They are so prejudiced in their news reporting, I have to leave the room if I'm somewhere that has Fox News on the tube.

Tom

11-26-2011, 05:45 AM

Yeah, turn over to a credible news channel, say, MSNBC! :lol:

BlueShoe

11-26-2011, 10:38 AM

What is cartoonish is the idea that the right doesn't believe in big government. They just believe that the government should do different things than the left, not less.
It depends on which branch of Right is referred to. Contrary to what the Left believes, the Right is not monolithic. The NeoCons, as exemplified by George Bush and his administration, were big government advocates. The PaleoCons or traditional conservatives, represented perhaps by the Tea Party, are limited government believers. There is often a deep divide between the two schools of thought. Lest we forget, there was much criticism of the Bush policies from the PaleoCons, including much of it right here on PA.

Tom

11-26-2011, 10:47 AM

Small government
Fiscal responsibility/lower taxes
Strong national defense

Anything else is bullshot.
Anything else is negotiable.
The core is NEVER negotiable

Robert Goren

11-26-2011, 11:18 AM

750 billion a year for the defense dept. alone. That is not counting what was spent/is being on the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also not counting the CIA and Homeland Security. That is hardly small government. Then there is things like telling a woman what she can do her own body or telling people who they can marry or keeping pot illegal or outlawing gambling. Not all conservatives agree on everything, just like not all liberals agree on everything. Even the so called conservative libertarians like Ron Paul often hedge their bets by saying the federal government shouldn't do something, but have no problems with the state governments doing it instead. Like I said. Not smaller, just different.

lsbets

11-26-2011, 02:17 PM

jelly

11-26-2011, 02:32 PM

The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.

Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

Ocala Mike

11-26-2011, 09:21 PM

"That government is best which governs (me) least." - Thomas Paine

"Government is not the solution; government is the problem (that's why I and my pals can't wait to head it)." - Ronald Reagan

Ocala Mike

Tom

11-27-2011, 12:32 AM

xhYJS80MgYA

Tom

11-27-2011, 12:33 AM

k5r6TmypfLc&feature=related
6ixNPplo-SU&feature=related

Tom

11-27-2011, 12:39 AM

w3Sb4RtFkmo&feature=related

Robert Goren

11-27-2011, 09:31 AM

Ron Paul doesn't say states should do things the federal government isn't authorized to do. He says the states can if they want to. Can and should are two very different things. Goren you might just be the most ill informed poster on PA.Check out his stand on abortion. Email him ask him if he thinks the states should outlaw it. I am he will answer you. He is really good about answering emails.

lsbets

11-27-2011, 09:49 AM

Check out his stand on abortion. Email him ask him if he thinks the states should outlaw it. I am he will answer you. He is really good about answering emails.

He is pro life. He doesn't hide it. Based on his time delivering babies he feels abortion is murder and the state cannot condone murder.

Try again. This time make a valid point if you can.

Robert Goren

11-27-2011, 09:55 AM

Tom

11-27-2011, 10:09 AM

Bitter old man.
You think anything this current idiot has done is the answer? :lol:
You deserve what you get.

Robert Goren

11-27-2011, 10:17 AM

He is pro life. He doesn't hide it. Based on his time delivering babies he feels abortion is murder and the state cannot condone murder.

Try again. This time make a valid point if you can. There lots of people including me and the Supreme Court who do not agree with him that abortion is murder. He is just another Pro Life supporter who wants to take away a woman's right to decide what to with her body. It is all about the big government making decisions for someone. The pro life conservatives don't want the government telling the people how to spend their money unless they want to spend it something they don't like. What a bunch of hypocrites. At least liberals are up front about telling people how to spend their money unlike conservatives. Like I said before conservatives want big government as much as liberals, they just want it involved in different things than the liberals.

lamboguy

11-27-2011, 10:19 AM

Ronald Reagan. Another republican big talker who did not practiced what he preached. The budget increased by 44% even after adjusting for inflation during his two terms. He used Keynesian economics to get the US out of a recession but claimed he did it by cutting taxes which he actually increased by closing loop holes in the tax code. Loops holes which, by the way, are now all back with a few extra thrown in for good measure.i think REAGAN had the biggest tax increase in the history of this country with the elimination of interest deductions from personal loans, credit cards, and auto loans. but on the other side he started a tax credit program so that financial institutions wound up paying no tax at all.

he did get the price of gold down from $800 per ounce to under $300. that sounds pretty good to me on balance. today these presidents are working on getting the gold price up to the stratosphere, the candidates that are running have that exact same policy, along with the rest of the world.

Robert Goren

11-27-2011, 10:33 AM

Bitter old man.
You think anything this current idiot has done is the answer? :lol:
You deserve what you get. He is doing the same things that Reagan did except he is up front about it. It worked for Reagan and it is beginning to work for Obama. Even Fox is reporting that Friday was the best "Black Friday" ever. Obama just had a bigger hole to dig out of than Reagan.
The thing that worries me about conservatives is that might actually do what they say they will do if they get in even though I know the chances of that happening are remote. We went through that experiment once with Herbert Hoover and it took FDR 13 years and the massive deficit spending during WWII to undo the damage.

lsbets

11-27-2011, 10:48 AM

There lots of people including me and the Supreme Court who do not agree with him that abortion is murder. He is just another Pro Life supporter who wants to take away a woman's right to decide what to with her body. It is all about the big government making decisions for someone. The pro life conservatives don't want the government telling the people how to spend their money unless they want to spend it something they don't like. What a bunch of hypocrites. At least liberals are up front about telling people how to spend their money unlike conservatives. Like I said before conservatives want big government as much as liberals, they just want it involved in different things than the liberals.

How the hell does being pro life equate to telling people how to spend their money? Can't wait to see your convoluted logic on this one.

Tom

11-27-2011, 11:01 AM

Where is Eames? Maybe she can translate.

DJofSD

11-27-2011, 11:04 AM

It is all about the big government making decisions for someone.

I thought that is what liberals wanted, but yet, when it comes to abortion, you want to let the woman decide.

I'm confused. (Well, no, not really.)

Tom

11-27-2011, 11:14 AM

Bobby prefers the lib cycle of life, or death.
Kill the baby now, then kill the mother when she gets old and needs medical care.

That is you lib plan, bobby.

You deserve what you get.

delayjf

11-27-2011, 02:09 PM

He used Keynesian economics to get the US out of a recession but claimed he did it by cutting taxes which he actually increased by closing loop holes in the tax code. Loops holes which, by the way, are now all back with a few extra thrown in for good measure.

Disagree - tax revenue increased due to the fact that his tax cuts and deregulation resulted in the economy growing. Economic growth is what led to and increase in tax revenues. Same thing happened under W. Growing the economy is the key to higher tax revenues.

PaceAdvantage

11-29-2011, 02:04 PM

They are so prejudiced in their news reporting, I have to leave the room if I'm somewhere that has Fox News on the tube.Seriously? No...seriously? :lol:

However do you live your life if a measly little news channel has this much effect on you?

ArlJim78

11-29-2011, 02:16 PM

raybo

11-29-2011, 02:20 PM

Seriously? No...seriously? :lol:

However do you live your life if a measly little news channel has this much effect on you?

Hey, have you ever caught me in a lie? I'm definitely serious.

Just putting in my 2 cents worth like everyone else in this thread.

Got a problem with that?

raybo

11-29-2011, 02:39 PM

Rachel Maddcow of MSDNC is listed on the WhiteHouse visitor log as having personally visited Obama on 4 occasions. no bias there? I guess it's merely a coincidence that she runs an hour long cheerleading show each night for Obama, that is when she isn't running hitpieces on his opposition. I guess that's all fair and balanced right?
Ed Schultz, non partisan? How about Piers Morgan or Martin Bashir, strictly the facts?
what about Tingles, just unbiased reporting?
what about throbbing vein Larry O'Donnell, how many times has he went against Obama?

You have a president who is now more unpopular than the hapless Jimmy Carter, and where are all the negative press stories? I don't see any.

I realize that the President isn't popular but most of us realize that most of that unpopularity is a direct result of the actions of Congress. Have you seen the latest popularity ratings for the Congress? Makes the President's look pretty good. As a matter of fact it makes almost everyone's popularity figures look pretty good.

bigmack

11-29-2011, 02:44 PM

I realize that the President isn't popular but most of us realize that most of that unpopularity is a direct result of the actions of Congress.
Most of who realizes? Have you taken a national poll or are you speculating?

Regarding your fleeing a room if Fox is being broadcast, what network do you find is less biased?

ArlJim78

11-29-2011, 03:46 PM

I realize that the President isn't popular but most of us realize that most of that unpopularity is a direct result of the actions of Congress. Have you seen the latest popularity ratings for the Congress? Makes the President's look pretty good. As a matter of fact it makes almost everyone's popularity figures look pretty good.
Obama owned congress for two years and cajoled and bribed and forced thru the worst legislation in history.
Obama now works around congress via czars and regulatory agencies like the EPA and the NLRB.
He is unpopular because of who he is, the lies he has told, what he believes and the reckless way he has governed. a total failure is what he is. Jimmy Carter moves up from the bottom of the list when this clown leaves office.

JustRalph

11-29-2011, 06:14 PM

Man the irony

Obama presides over the best "Black Friday" ever

Naturally I guess

Seriously, Raybo, just do what I do every time I go into place and Msnbc is on. I pull out my Schwantz and wave it at the Tv 3 times and say the lords prayer backwards, twice.

That will get you a seat in the Jiffy Lube waiting room every time

delayjf

12-01-2011, 09:06 AM

I pull out my Schwantz and wave it at the Tv 3 times and say the lords prayer backwards, twice.

Ha Ha :lol: :lol: I just got a visual.

raybo

12-01-2011, 10:59 AM

Most of who realizes? Have you taken a national poll or are you speculating?

Regarding your fleeing a room if Fox is being broadcast, what network do you find is less biased?

Well, when there is a 9% approval rating for Congress, doesn't that mean "most of us", usually?

bigmack

12-01-2011, 11:42 AM

Well, when there is a 9% approval rating for Congress, doesn't that mean "most of us", usually?
Very entertaining.

I realize that the President isn't popular but most of us realize that most of that unpopularity is a direct result of the actions of Congress.

Read what you wrote carefully. Can you show a poll showing this majority of people thinking Mr. President is unpopular because of the actions of Congress?

Somehow, I think people find him underwhelming all by himself.

NJ Stinks

12-01-2011, 12:19 PM

Somehow, I think people find him underwhelming all by himself.

I'm stunned, Mack! What a shocking revelation!

Of course you do. :sleeping:

mostpost

12-01-2011, 04:50 PM

w3Sb4RtFkmo&feature=related
If Reagan wanted to shrink the government, he did a lousy job of it. In 1988 there were 324,000 more federal employees than in 1980.
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp
In fact Reagan added more federal employees than any other president in the last forty years. Who did best at reducing the size of the Federal government?
Bill Clinton of course. :D

bigmack

12-01-2011, 05:20 PM

If Reagan wanted to shrink the government, he did a lousy job of it. In 1988 there were 324,000 more federal employees than in 1980.
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp
In fact Reagan added more federal employees than any other president in the last forty years. Who did best at reducing the size of the Federal government?
Bill Clinton of course. :D
As usual, you show only a portion of the picture when numbers roll to your favor. 'Federal jobs' include military, of which, Clinton reduced the military by 422,000.

IF you wanted to be honest you would separate military numbers from non-military.

If the 'Avg Joe' could look into the workplace of non-military federal employees they could see waste not unlike standing in line at the dreaded USPS.

40% of federal employees - Thumb twirlin' in cubicles waiting to punch-out.

mostpost

12-01-2011, 06:09 PM

As usual, you show only a portion of the picture when numbers roll to your favor. 'Federal jobs' include military, of which, Clinton reduced the military by 422,000.
You got that figure from the link I provided, so don't say I wasn't being honest. The fact is the ratios don't change much if you use civilian employees. Reagan added 233,000 federal jobs, while Clinton cut 378,000.

IF you wanted to be honest you would separate military numbers from non-military.

If the 'Avg Joe' could look into the workplace of non-military federal employees they could see waste not unlike standing in line at the dreaded USPS.

40% of federal employees - Thumb twirlin' in cubicles waiting to punch-out.

Please provide a link for that percentage. www.outofmybutt.com?
What I know is that I have had to visit the Social Security office on several occasions. I have never been there when the employees were not all working very hard.
Perhaps we could ask NJStinks if he was one of the 40%.

sammy the sage

12-01-2011, 07:33 PM

As usual, you show only a portion of the picture when numbers roll to your favor. 'Federal jobs' include military, of which, Clinton reduced the military by 422,000.

IF you wanted to be honest you would separate military numbers from non-military.

If the 'Avg Joe' could look into the workplace of non-military federal employees they could see waste not unlike standing in line at the dreaded USPS.

40% of federal employees - Thumb twirlin' in cubicles waiting to punch-out.

The Military is NO different than THE REST of ANY federal backed employment...PERIOD...they SHOULD count AS well...

WHY...really...Eisenhower WARNED of THIS exact scenerio...military/industrial complex DESTROYING us ALL...

shame that you and other's would/do DEFEND that...

then again pug/con owned BIG corporations wouldn't make BIG profits from selling to military...

don't worry...I thing the crats/leeches are JUST as bad...

the point being BM...quit being a hypocrit...http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hypocrite

bigmack

12-01-2011, 07:41 PM

The Military is NO different than THE REST of ANY federal backed employment...PERIOD...they SHOULD count AS well...

WHY...really...Eisenhower WARNED of THIS exact scenerio...military/industrial complex DESTROYING us ALL...
Then again, the issue I was addressing was the reduction of big government as mostie was yapping about. Normally the size of government is not shown in military numbers.

Reading comprehension seems a problem for some around here but it does help to create more asinine posts.

sammy the sage

12-01-2011, 07:54 PM

Then again, the issue I was addressing was the reduction of big government as mostie was yapping about. Normally the size of government is not shown in military numbers.

Reading comprehension seems a problem for some around here but it does help to create more asinine posts.

Don't look in a mirror :lol:

NJ Stinks

12-01-2011, 09:45 PM

What I know is that I have had to visit the Social Security office on several occasions. I have never been there when the employees were not all working very hard.
Perhaps we could ask NJStinks if he was one of the 40%.

"Only the taxpayers I audited know for sure, Mostpost," says NJ Stinks as he sharpens his pencil.

johnhannibalsmith

12-01-2011, 09:55 PM

"Only the taxpayers I audited know for sure, Mostpost," says NJ Stinks as he sharpens his pencil.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_82jYjcjk6wM/SZw-d83dgsI/AAAAAAAAAcg/LkSRFicBj08/s400/obama_irs_taxes_381215.jpg

johnhannibalsmith

12-01-2011, 09:59 PM

"Only the taxpayers I audited know for sure, Mostpost," says NJ Stinks as he sharpens his pencil.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_82jYjcjk6wM/SV6IMpR88vI/AAAAAAAAAOU/iYZ-TpoaYuw/s400/1greedy_type_irs_two_jobs_335835.jpg

NJ Stinks

12-01-2011, 10:02 PM

:lol: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_82jYjcjk6wM/SZw-d83dgsI/AAAAAAAAAcg/LkSRFicBj08/s400/obama_irs_taxes_381215.jpg

Nice comeback! :D

NJ Stinks

12-01-2011, 10:04 PM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_82jYjcjk6wM/SV6IMpR88vI/AAAAAAAAAOU/iYZ-TpoaYuw/s400/1greedy_type_irs_two_jobs_335835.jpg

Not that good!

Tom

12-01-2011, 11:17 PM

The Military is NO different than THE REST of ANY federal backed employment...PERIOD...they SHOULD count AS well...

Wow - that is dumbest thing I have EVER seen posted here.
Congratulations.

I guess you support a military union? Iran goes to war, call out the mail carriers?

HUSKER55

12-01-2011, 11:33 PM

good one tom! :lol:

BlueShoe

12-01-2011, 11:58 PM

I guess you support a military union? Iran goes to war, call out the mail carriers?
Since we were talking about the policies of the Reagan administration, perhaps he misses the Soviet Union. Nothing like having those Russian missiles aimed at us or having the Red Army poised to roll into Western Europe was there? The libs whine about the Reagan deficets and military buildup, but seem to omit that shortly after Reagan left office the Warsaw Pact broke up as the satelite nations broke away and finally The Evil Empire was no more, largely because of the efforts of Reagan and his administration.

woodtoo

12-02-2011, 12:05 AM

Amen

mostpost

12-02-2011, 01:37 AM

Since we were talking about the policies of the Reagan administration, perhaps he misses the Soviet Union. Nothing like having those Russian missiles aimed at us or having the Red Army poised to roll into Western Europe was there? The libs whine about the Reagan deficets and military buildup, but seem to omit that shortly after Reagan left office the Warsaw Pact broke up as the satelite nations broke away and finally The Evil Empire was no more, largely because of the efforts of Reagan and his administration.

I know you believe that fairy tale, but it just ain't so. The Soviet Union collapsed from within. It had a lot of help from one of its own leaders, Mikhail Gorbachev.
By the time Reagan took office the Soviet Union was already in trouble. The last years of Brezhnev's reign were plagued by a stagnant economy. Brezhnev was succeeded by Yuri Andropov and then Konstantin Chernenko, neither of whom was an effective leader. By the time Gorbachev came to power the Soviet economy was in a shambles. In addition, the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan was costing dearly; both in lives and resources.

Gorbachev recognized that changes needed to be made. His original plan was to save the Soviet Union and the Communist Party. Gorbachev believed that the Soviet Union needed to revise its thinking in order to survive. He initiated a number of reforms among them Perestroika (restructuring) and Glasnost (openness).

What he failed to realize is that those reforms would provoke renewed feelings of nationalism among the republics of the Soviet Union and the client states of Eastern Europe. Demonstrations and outright rebellion ensued. Due to a number of factors, the central government was not able to respond. The war in Afghanistan had taken too many resources and had greatly diminished the enthusiasm of the Russian people for conflict. Decades of communist economic policy had left the treasury bankrupt.

I have heard ad Nauseum that Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union by outspending it on military matters. Even if true (I do not accept that it is.) it happened because in Mikhail Gorbachev, Reagan faced a different kind of Soviet leader. One was concerned more about country than party. One who was unwilling to starve his people to maintain an empire. Had Brezhnev or Andropov or Chernenko still held power, Reagan's efforts would have failed, Millions of Russians would have died and the status would have still been quo.
Oh yeah, our economy would have been in the toilet, which, come to think of it is what happened anyway.

Some interesting ruminations by Gorbachev on these events as published in an August 16, 2011 article in the Guardian. Presented without comment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/16/gorbachev-guardian-interview

bigmack

12-02-2011, 01:52 AM

NJ Stinks

12-02-2011, 03:23 AM

That's right kiddies. R2 had nothing to do with the Iron Curtain falling. It was all Gorbachev as evidenced by this statue in Warsaw. Among the many throughout formerly Eastern block countries.

Behold:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02061/reagan_2061696c.jpg

Interesting quote below from a Yahoo News article:

"Reagan gave us hope," said Janusz Dorosiewicz, the president of the board of the Ronald Reagan Foundation in Poland. He conceived of the monument and struggled for six years with bureaucracy to secure the prized location for the statue."

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/walesa-unveils-statue-ronald-reagan-warsaw-132226810.html

Anybody know anything about the Ronald Reagan Foundation in Poland? The only thing I could find about the funding for this statue was this:

"The Ronald Reagan Foundation in Poland and film producer Janusz Dorosiewicz initiated the project, which was funded by private donations."

Mack, I would be inclined to agree that these Ronald Reagan statues in Eastern Bloc countries are a testament to the man if somebody other than the Ronald Reagan Foundation paid for them. (shrug)

bigmack

12-02-2011, 03:40 AM

Mack, I would be inclined to agree that these Ronald Reagan statues in Eastern Bloc countries are a testament to the man if somebody other than the Ronald Reagan Foundation paid for them. (shrug)
Like who - The Wojciech Jaruzelski Fan Club?

http://img.timeinc.net/time/europe50/reflow/1979/jaruzelski.jpg

Why do you think there is a Ronald Reagan Foundation in Poland? Wow. :bang:

sammy the sage

12-02-2011, 07:59 AM

Wow - that is dumbest thing I have EVER seen posted here.
Congratulations.

I guess you support a military union? Iran goes to war, call out the mail carriers?

nice try :rolleyes:

They should be FISCALLY responsible...has NOTHING to do w/Unions...ALL branch's of government currently are corrupt and wasteful...

Of course Tom and many other's here think it's ok to pay $100 for hammer or $500 for a toilet seat or ect...well ya'll get the picture...actually...you and don't :faint:

delayjf

12-02-2011, 09:26 AM

WHY...really...Eisenhower WARNED of THIS exact scenerio...military/industrial complex DESTROYING us ALL...

shame that you and other's would/do DEFEND that...

Exactly how is our military complex destroying this country. This past recession wasn't caused by the military. If you want to cut the military cut procurement, they listen as the Unions howl - lots of Union workers in the Military industrial complex.

BlueShoe

12-02-2011, 10:39 AM

I know you believe that fairy tale, but it just ain't so. The Soviet Union collapsed from within. It had a lot of help from one of its own leaders, Mikhail Gorbachev.By the time Reagan took office the Soviet Union was already in trouble.
Yes it was so. It sticks in the craws of leftists that a conservative played the major role in the defeat of the USSR, for whom the left has always admired due to their own ingrained Marxism. The Soviet Union was in trouble since its inception due to the inherent flaws of Communism. Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, etc., it did not matter. Weaknesss or not, the Soviets possessed military might until their end and always posed a huge threat.

mostpost

12-02-2011, 01:51 PM

Like who - The Wojciech Jaruzelski Fan Club?

http://img.timeinc.net/time/europe50/reflow/1979/jaruzelski.jpg

Why do you think there is a Ronald Reagan Foundation in Poland? Wow. :bang:

Because, just as in this country, there is a certain misinformed segment of the population that has bought into the propaganda.

mostpost

12-02-2011, 02:01 PM

Yes it was so. It sticks in the craws of leftists that a conservative played the major role in the defeat of the USSR, for whom the left has always admired due to their own ingrained Marxism. The Soviet Union was in trouble since its inception due to the inherent flaws of Communism. Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, etc., it did not matter. Weaknesss or not, the Soviets possessed military might until their end and always posed a huge threat.
They possessed military might; in the end they did not possess the will to use it. But that would have changed had the 1991 coup succeeded. The hardliners would have reversed the reforms. The would have ignored the dire straits of the people. It was only because Gorbachev (and later Yeltsin) was in power that the outcome was what it was.

And what is the benefit of this supposed triumph? We have merely exchanged one enemy for another. Prior to Reagan the Soviet Union and communism were contained. They posed no day to day threat to us here. Now we have an enemy which can strike on our soil at any time in any place.

This is not to say that I am unhappy that the Soviet Union is gone; just that I think its demise was inevitable and would have occurred without us wasting hundreds of billions of dollars.

Tom

12-02-2011, 02:55 PM

Of course Tom and many other's here think it's ok to pay $100 for hammer or $500 for a toilet seat or ect...well ya'll get the picture...actually...you and don't :faint:

The military has exactly specifications for products it buys. Do want a US Soldier in harms way in the Middle East relying on a Walmart wire cutter to get him through Bin Laden's fence?

Or would it better to have the best wire cutter there is in his mitts?

Let's cut waste in non-critcal areas first, then worry about the men and women who put thieves on the line as their SOP.Lord know, if they make it back home, we will not over-spend taking care of them.

Or, just eliminate the military altogether and we can all rely on Obama's position of respect and admiration in the world to keep us safe.

bigmack

12-02-2011, 03:14 PM

Because, just as in this country, there is a certain misinformed segment of the population that has bought into the propaganda.
History will show what they bought having exponential more value than any nitwit who bought the propaganda of BO. Know anyone like that? :lol:

BlueShoe

12-02-2011, 03:24 PM

They possessed military might; in the end they did not possess the will to use it. But that would have changed had the 1991 coup succeeded. The hardliners would have reversed the reforms.
The Soviets were always a threat, but yes, had the hardliners gained control the risk would have been greater.

And what is the benefit of this supposed triumph? We have merely exchanged one enemy for another. Prior to Reagan the Soviet Union and communism were contained. They posed no day to day threat to us here. Now we have an enemy which can strike on our soil at any time in any place.
You are contradicting yourself. Contained before 1981 but a threat in 1991 without Gorbachev? The USSR had thousands of nuclear warheads, a modern airforce, an extremely formidable submarine fleet, and the Red Army. What do the Muslim extremists possess? No known nuclear ability, or chemical and biological weapons or the means to deliver them. No major attack in more than ten years on our soil. Only a few hundred, or at most, a few thousand fanatical followers. Just how is this more dangerous than was the Soviet arsenal and the millions under arms in the Warsaw Pact bloc?

This is not to say that I am unhappy that the Soviet Union is gone; just that I think its demise was inevitable and would have occurred without us wasting hundreds of billions of dollars.
No its demise was not inevitable, quite the contrary, without American might they would have run roughshod all over the globe and perhaps turned the USA into a charred cinder. Did you ever hear "Peace Through Strength"? That is not just a slogan. When will leftists learn? If you are weak your enemy will attack you. If you are strong enough to defeat him he will not attack you. Why cant liberals get this simple very basic truth?