Classic.
235 Responses to “Newt Tells Obama He Can Use a Teleprompter When They Debate.”
Leave a Reply
Our new book, 150 Reasons Why Barack Obama is The Worst President in History is now available on Amazon.com!
Our new book, 150 Reasons Why Barack Obama is The Worst President in History is now available on Amazon.com!
The MSM is pinning back their ears and ready to go full throttle on the attack on Newt. What they don’t know yet is that Newt is more than ready to counter attack, and I for one, am looking forward to the battle.
Newt 2012!!
I am sure Obama is terrified of Newt. Please, Please don’t throw me in the briar patch Newt!! I would love to see Newt win the nomination, Newt cannot hide his personality and it isn’t likable. Political debates are about more than who has memorized their talking points, voter respond to personality and intangibles as well. The charismatic, tall, likable, family man against the grating, charmless, unlikeable, cheater who looks like what anyone thinks of when they picture a pedophile.
I would put the money on Obama.
Still banging on about Larry Sinclair, neocon? Really?
so BPS can call newt a pedophile, but larry sinclair a writer who has a book on amazon is off limits?
am I missing something here???
It is nice to see that you are not allowed to have a free pass anymore. We, Ourselves, of the Collective would call this an “affirmative action” on the part of the moderators.
Your baseless accusations toward President Obama had no place on a civil blog comment area. If you detest Obama so greatly do as We have done, start your own blog.
[q c p n!]
majordumbo
get over your self troll, It was about my language,
not the truth about the marxist, muslim, usurper that got my posts deleted.
nice try there perv.
Obama’s may be likeable, but he can’t run the country and that’s the job of the President. We’ve had four years of “likeable ” and most Americans have come to the conclusion it’s time for some comptence.
If, indeed, most Americans have concluded that it’s time for some competence, Rightlane, they sure in tarnation are not going to get it from this current crop of Republican candidates. The GOP scraped the bottom of the barrel with these sorry losers and that is a crying shame for the voter. Unless a miracle happens and a competent Republican candidate is found, it appears that Mr. Obama will be serving as your President and leader of the free world for another term.
LOL, are you a spoof neocon1? There has to be at least one conspiracy theory you don’t believe right? Newt won’t win against Obama, Romney will get the nomination and he has all the likable charm of John Kerry or a small pile of driftwood. And he looks like a guy who transfers jobs overseas, in fact he is one of those guys so good luck winning anything with him.
The language here is why you are off the blog for a while. Clean it up or hit the bricks. //Moderator
what language?
my referral to a screen name?
or blog content?
at least give a clue to what you do not want.
Well, I would quote Allen West too. What a stellar human being he is. I will be very surprised if he gets a second term – he has stepped into it so many times during his first term as a representative. I am sure everyone goes to Allen West for his opinion on just about everything – especially Obama. What a joke. Maybe you could find a quote from the other Republican freshman who is the dead beat dad? I am sure everyone has tremendous respect for his opinions as well. This is the best that the Republican Party has to offer?
And it’s the Holiday Time again; I love Christmas lights. They remind me of the people who voted for Obama. They all hang together; half of them don’t work, and the ones that do, aren’t that bright.
Since obAMATEUR can’t run on “four more years” and just offers a rehash of failed liberal policies and class warfare, velma’s post is an example of what we will see from the obAMATEUR campaign – personal attacks and demagougery.
Way to go velma, drone on with the usual talking points. We know you are a party without ideas and just the usual BS.
back at you tired. Do you know what “hypocritical” means? Go look it up in the dictionary. You photo will be next to the word.
I for one certainly do not want to go back to a replication of the Bush years, which you thought were so wonderful. You seem to miss that there has been 20 months of growth in this country since Obama took office. We still have a high unemployment problem, but it sure is better than what it was the day Obama took office. The stock market certainly is better than the day Bush left office. The economy was close to a depression – and Obama brought it back, albeit slowly. But, the economy didn’t take a nose dive in 8 or 9 months – it was brought on by years of Republican de-regulations and lowering taxes. When was the last time the US lowered taxes while engaged in one war, let alone two wars??? The Republicans have done its very best to make sure try to block everything Obama has tried to do, including things the Republicans thought were great ideas until Obama took office. In short, the Republicans put the party before their country. Shame on them. And we all know, since corporations are “people” too, it is the job of the Republican Party to look out for the interest of the corporations first.
Four more years of Obama? You bet, with what the Republicans are putting out there for potential presidential material. If that is the best the GOP has then it needs to fold up as a party.
Personal attacks and demagoguery? You are a great one to throw stones at someone else when it is your m.o. everyday.
velma continues with the usual mindless talking points….
“Bush years …which you thought were so wonderful.”
Uh, no. I, along with others here have been critical of Bush and the Republicans who spent like drunken sailors. However, obAMATEUR spent just as much in less than half the time. Next.
“You seem to miss that there has been 20 months of growth in this country since Obama took office.”
Growth which could have been more if it were not for obAMATEUR’s stagnant policies. Next.
“We still have a high unemployment problem, but it sure is better than what it was the day Obama took office.
Again, unemployment was lower when obAMATEUR took office. It was lower when his “stimulus” plan was first passed. Real unemployment is grotesquely higher now than before. Next.
” it was brought on by years of Republican de-regulations and lowering taxes.”
Uh, when you libs are asked for the legislation that did all what you claim, don’t provide any. The last major deregulation of any industry was the banking industry and that was in 1998. Next. Lowering taxes brought us out of the Clinton recession and increased revenues. The spending is what increased said deficits.
“When was the last time the US lowered taxes while engaged in one war, let alone two wars???”
So, obAMATEUR (and you drones) boasts of lowering taxes AND having done so with three wars.
“The Republicans have done its very best to make sure try to block everything Obama has tried to do, including things the Republicans thought were great ideas until Obama took office.”
Sure, obAMATEUR has been in the mode of ALL or NOTHING – pass all that he wants or he doesn’t want it at all – and he gets his wish with Harry Reid stopping everything that makes it past the House – not even allowing it on the floor.
“In short, the Republicans put the party before their country. ” Really? Let’s see, obAMATEUR stops the pipeline project, closes the GOM and is now slowly opening it but is tight-fisted on regulation to prevent new drilling, but has the “more oil exploration leases” talking point.
” it is the job of the Republican Party to look out for the interest of the corporations first.”
Really? Why can’t you face the fact that obAMATEUR has taken more money from corporations and Wall Street than the Republicans? The sweet deal that GE made with obAMATEUR has been revealed to have earned massive profits with little or no taxes paid – while moving operations offshore.
“Four more years of Obama? You bet…..”
Spoken like a true mindless drone. However, obAMATEUR does not even want to run on that pitiful record. This is the reason for the class warfare tactic as well as the tax increase rhetoric after pushing to keep the tax cuts.
“Personal attacks and demagoguery? You are a great one to throw stones at someone else when it is your m.o. everyday.”
Then again, I am not running for pResident and I can be critical of anyone I choose. You don’t like the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
If you look up the words “mindless” and “drone” your picture would be next to them after that regurgitated verbal diarrhea you just posted. All of that was just dumbed down talking points that we have heard time and again most of which has been debunked here for a while now.
You could have saved yourself lots of time by just regurgitating “It’s Bush’s fault and this pResident is not responsible for anything”.
Pathetic.
“Which Obama policies stunted growth?” According to the CBO; most likely ~ all of them; “The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.“
Obviously wally you have not been paying attention or you just don’t give a rat’s a$$. This has been discussed and shown to be true time and again, here. It is for certain that you lack the reading comprehension to understand anything above your elementary grade level.
You, as usual, just want to fling your mental excrement hoping something will stick.
asked and answered wally. Hint: count
Still haven’t fully recovered from your huge meltdown the other day?
But of course, you could care less, you will ignore it anyway, as you have done countless times before.
The charismatic, tall, likable, family man against the grating, charmless, unlikeable, cheater who looks like what anyone thinks of when they picture a pedophile. – bloody
Great example of how deep liberal thinking is, and one good reason why we find ourselves in such a mess. Liberals are emotionally hyper sensitive, think only in personality, and lack the gray matter to objectively think substantively. I know that I am tired of the infantile approach to politics that liberals engage in, and I also think that the majority of rational minded voters are as well.
stumpy merely illustrates the American Idol mentality of the Pseudo Left, unaware of the ideology they support and defend, indifferent to its reality or its history, swarming like the lemmings they are after whoever appeals to them on a wholly superficial level of appearance, personality and identity.
Not once have I seen these types discuss the best blueprint for governing the country. They are so shallow and clueless, they think politics is really just about scandal and personality, and a way to validate pathological needs to hurl vitriol and hate.
“you guys put up an amateur AA NOBODY community agitator, with a racist AA wookie of a wife,who never even ran a lemonaid stand, a dimwit VP and a bunch of commie union thugs and you criticize us”
Yep and they kicked your ass. That is all.
How many times do you have to be told? Perhaps you need a time out for a day or so to figure out how to post without being crude. //Moderator
crude is in the eyes of the beholder, one persons comedy is another’s crude
thanks
You seem to think vulgarity and crudity are funny. They are not allowed here and not seen the way you seem to see them. Do not play games pretending you do not know why your posts are deleted. If you want to post smut there are places it will be welcome. //Moderator
Here’s another cool statistic to add to your list:
The top 400 earners in the country make more than the entire bottom 50% put together.
Let me play the world’s tiniest violin for them.
So what Cory – just because someone else is rich, doesn’t mean that others have to be poor. Wealth is not a static concept.
“So what Cory – just because someone else is rich, doesn’t mean that others have to be poor. Wealth is not a static concept.”
If the wage for running our service industry (which we need and can’t be outsourced) is such that you are poor, then yes, someone has to be poor. If you’re for changing that, more power to you, but I think you’re voting for the wrong party.
“corky
and they PAY 70% of ALL taxes…..
next?
I have NEVER been employed by, worked for, paid by…a poor man.
However I have worked, employed, payed some.”
Oh man you are smart. Let’s just give all of our money to one person so he can employ us all, then! We’ll call him and king, and then his firstborn son can inherit all of his wealth when he dies.
“If the wage (sic) for running our service industry (sic) is such that you are poor (again, sic) then yes, someone (sic) has to be (*sigh* sic) poor.”
Lord that was one awful sentence.
If you mean to say that wages being offered for persons in service industries are substandard, then they have a choice to not work for those offering the deficient wages; you know, get a better job.
No one is forced to accept sub-standard wages or working conditions; in spite of Obama’s Marxist dreams from his African Marxist father, we’re not a socialist country yet.
“If you(sic) mean to say that wages being offered for persons in service(sic)(sic) industries are substandard, then they have a choice to not work for(sic)(sic) those offering the deficient wages; you know, get a better job.(sic)
No one is forced to accept sub(sic)-standard wages or working conditions; in spite of Obama’s Marxist dreams f(sic)rom his African Marxist father, we’re not a socialist (sic)(sic)(sic)country yet.”
Look, I can paste “(sic)” in random places in a grammatically correct statement, as well. Actually, I lied. You misused a semicolon, and “substandard” is not hyphenated.
To address your actual, non-pedantic point, the narrative of how all people getting paid poorly could fix everything just by getting better jobs is stupid. The world needs garbage men and people to stock the aisles in the grocery store. Our options are either to accept that we have to have poor people or do something to fix it. Bedtime stories about the little engine who could aren’t doing anything except helping you feel better about yourself.
If the wage for running our service industry (which we need and can’t be outsourced) is such that you are poor, then yes, someone has to be poor.
Exactly. There are certain menial jobs which require very little in the way of skill or education, and these pay less than jobs with higher qualifications. The incentive is to develop more skills to be able to advance to higher paying work. Work is paid for according to its worth, just as everything else in the market is priced according to its value. Even in a higher paying industry, pay is determined by the value of the work the employee brings to the table.
Are you saying you think everyone should receive the same pay, no matter what the level of skill or quality of work the worker provides?
Are you saying that no worker has the responsibility to develop skills which will demand higher pay, but that it is the responsibility of the employer to pay more than the work is worth?
Nope. I’m saying that you can flatten the wage curve such that the bottom end doesn’t have to be abject poverty without removing the incentive to try to get a better job. Or, if you don’t want to try to do that, you can’t pretend that the only reason people can be poor is if they just aren’t trying hard enough. If you have a race, no matter how fast everybody is, somebody still has to come in last.
The world needs garbage men and people to stock the aisles in the grocery store. Our options are either to accept that we have to have poor people or do something to fix it.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “fix it”, Cory. We already have a minimum wage law. Are you suggesting raising it to, say, $10.00/hour, or maybe $15.00/hour? How about $20.00/hour, or better yet, how about just guaranteeing everyone a living wage, no matter their skill or education level. Then we could just do away with higher education completely, as there would be no reason to better one’s self. That would also solve the student loan problem. Just a thought.
There are other things you can do to raise people out of poverty besides increasing minimum wage. Health care costs are a good place to start.
There are other things you can do to raise people out of poverty besides increasing minimum wage. Health care costs are a good place to start.
We don’t do so in a cost-effective way, but we already provide free healthcare for those who can’t afford it. What would you suggest, that we pay poor people to get sick?
What, by letting them skip out on emergency room bills? Does destroying their credit to help them in emergencies and leaving them out to dry if they need any sort of chronic care count as covering their health care? Or are you under the impression that Medicaid covers everyone most of us would consider lower class?
I’m guessing you’re the expert on being banned from this blog Sasan. How long will you hide behind this screen name?
I was ready to call it enough but the very next post was the same crudity. //Moderator
It was posted BEFORE you moderated it and mentioned anything.
So it was not posted in contempt.
I assume you think I am Susan, I’ll just say I am not she, as I assume that she is a woman. Did she get banned for making fun of neocon?
.
Awwwww. you are just too too coy, aren’t you?
But as you so well know, it is SASAN, not Susan, and Sasan is a male, though not very manly.
And he got banned for, as far as I could tell, bringing nothing to the blog but bile and hatred, vitriol and nastiness, insults and personal attacks, and in general using the blog as a litter box for his mental excrement—all of which sound very much like you, stumpy.
Amazona, it also sounds a great deal like your good friend, neocon. How can you continue to ignore his manure droppings and then at the same time voice your displeasure over someone else’s perceived sins? What’s up with that?
Secret Fed Loans Helped Banks Net $13B
Bloomberg has won a lengthy Freedom of Information battle to get the details of a secretive, no-strings-attached multi-trillion-dollar payout from the Bush administration (continued by the Obama administration) to banks, the details of which were not available to Congress. The documents make it clear that the banks’ posture that they were only borrowing the money to help the government (JP Morgan said it borrowed “at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system”) were purest refined BS. Morgan for example, had borrowed twice its cash holdings.
Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.
Neither Obama or Gingrich would change the above scenario. Though the banks made 13 billion from the low priced interest it could have been much worse. Eventually it will be and the Obama (or Clinton or Kerrey) supporters will be bickering with the Gingrich (or Bush or Romney) supporters about who is more to blame.
“Secret Loans”? TARP was a bad idea, Bailouts were a bad idea. The Fed is a bad idea.
Having said that, the $13.0B was realized after repayment and the cost to the taxpayer was a fraction of that (the actual difference between the interest received and the actual lending rates should the Fed have loaned the same amount at open rates; which according to the article, was highly unlikely.) It is possible that the Fed received more via interest than simply holding the funds would have realized. Also, the $7.77 T is a bogus assumption based on the myth of a full capital run which is, as always absurd. Reminds me of this scene from It’s a Wonderful Life.
George Bailey: No, but you…you… you’re thinking of this place all wrong.
As if I had the money back in a safe.
The, the money’s not here.
Charlie: Well, where is my money George?
George Bailey: Well, your money’s in Joe’s house…that’s right next to yours.
Charlie: JOE? You bastard, give back me my money before I beat the crap out of you!
Regardless, the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I think that’s the point I was going for.
Unfortunately, the Fed was the one item that the founding fathers wished to address but never got the consensus for. For outlawing the possibility of that is–they did put the control in the hands of Congress but Congress ceded control in the original progressive assault (1910 ~ 1914) and we ended up with Jekyll Island and the Fed.
Progressives have been at work trying to dismantle the work of the founders since the founding but the people only fight back when they push too far. We need to start keeping watch on the Government and stay in the trenches forever and forever diligent.
” … assumption based on the myth of a full capital run which is, as always absurd. ” – Count
Unlikely is not impossible. I don’t find a good parallel in U.S. history for when millions of people like Mark Noonan owed more on their houses than they are worth. I don’t find a good parallel in history when millions of students owed large amounts of money for educations without job prospects. Yet here we are.
What is absurd is believing the mythology of modern day economic theory, where e.g. Wall Street is needed to allocate capital efficiently. Where stock prices are normally distributed and arbitrage opportunities are rare. The mythology that people like Newt become rich through keen insights instead of using their government connections. Where companies like Boeing would weather the storm without government contracts. Where farmers in the US could compete with lowly paid Mexican equivalents without subsidies.
Regardless, the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I think that’s the point I was going for.
“Unlikely is not impossible”
You sir, have a keen grasp of the obvious. However, please bear in mind that should the “unlikely” come to pass the amount loaned would be the least of our worries.
I don’t understand your reference to Wall Street “allocating capital”. Do you believe the Fed is or should be in the business of allocations?
I’ll refer to Uncle Miltie here; “The role of the Fed is to preserve price stability. Period. And price stability in a broad aggregate—in a broad index. It should not be concerned with the asset markets as such, only as they affect indirectly—somehow—the price stability as a whole.”
As long as we’re on the subject; Uncle Miltie, and I believe in the free market, I assume your reference to “modern day economic theory” is actually in reference to early 20th Century Keynesian ideas you enumerated (although I don’t see what economic theory applies to Newt being paid as a consultant) like subsidies, bailouts and wage/price controls.
Parallels in history to home value disparity? How about 1978? (Check out the foreclosure rate and bankruptcy rates in the late 70s~That was easy). Parallels in history to millions of college educated adults not having a guarantee of a job? How about always? With large college loans? How about my entire lifetime? (I still have outstanding college loans from the time of the longest expansion of peacetime economy in our history. Those unfortunates that graduated college in the mid-1970s faced unemployment as high as today, with interest rates and inflation climbing to double digits.
“Where stock prices are normally distributed and arbitrage opportunities are rare.”
How are stock prices “normally distributed? I thought stock prices are set and bargained, but I’ve never purchased distributed stock so I may just be ignorant of that terminology. (I’ll just bet you thought I was going to challenge your use of arbitrage didn’t you?) OK, I give up, what economic theory believes that arbitrage opportunities are rare?
Farmers have to compete with subsidized Mexicans? Seriously, does that even make sense?
But, back to the subject; the “right” is looking to plain-speaking Newt to be the New Reagan; I believe Newt is actually the New Nixon.
Vile, disgusting post deleted//Moderator
Even more vile and disgusting. //Moderator
An orphanage? Seriously?
What a vile piece of human excrement this person is!
I guess well see how long it take him to be banned this time.
Disgusting!
so the possibility of the massad blowing up a uranium enrichment site in Iran and wrecking their nuclear war making capabilities is now disgusting?
interesting
Lol, no that was a joke about neocon celebrating an explosion somewhere in Iran, not advocacy of orphanages being destroyed.
Joke? About blowing up an orphanage?
No, a joke is when you make someone laugh. Not a disgusting celebration over the killing of innocents. You’re revolting.
“Not a disgusting celebration over the killing of innocents.” Exactly, I am glad we agree, which is why I was making fun of neocon for celebrating an explosion. LOL!
BPS
NO…NONE, ZIP, NADA mention of casualities…and NO celebration there of.
just a celebration of the Massads capabilities.
Brannan also added that ISIS had recently learned from “knowledgeable officials” that the blast occurred just as Iran had achieved a “milestone” in the development of a new missile, and may have been performing a “volatile procedure involving a missile engine at the site.”
Suspicions that covert actions may be responsible for this and other explosions continue to mount despite official denials by the Iranian regime.
Interestingly, on Monday The Blaze reported that a major blast also rocked the Iranian city of Isfahan, a town that is said to be “home to nuclear experimental reactors, and also a uranium enrichment facility for producing nuclear fuel.”
I posted this yesterday on another thread, and have not received one response, so I will try again:
I would like to ask one of our resident liberals what Obama’s agenda will be for his possible second term. What great new ideas does he have to ignite this economy? What ideas does he have to reform entitlements, and how will he shape our immigration policy. I look forward to your response.
cluster
hard to answer this……
Chris Christie Tears Into Obama: ‘What the Hell Are We Paying You For?’
“a bystander in the Oval Office”
or
Cramer: We‘re ’Two Stages From a Financial Collapse So Huge It‘s Hard to Get Your Mind Around’
“we are in a dangerous moment right now”
more Obamaisms….
Cornel West: Ultimate Push for Entitlements Will Be ‘Fought in the Streets’ by Occupy Movement
“Poor children need…a war against poverty.”
I love Christie
Cluster,
You’re not surprised that you haven’t gotten a response to these questions, are you? None of the issues you’ve mentioned hold even the slightest interest to Liberals in general, and the low-level Leftist foot soldiers who frequent this blog in particular. Few, if any, have ever attempted to discuss problems and solutions from a political viewpoint, which, as Amazona has repeatedly pointed out, leads one to the inescapable conclusion that they are incapable of discussing the pros and cons of the two primary means of governing this country, preferring instead to hurl insults and invective. Cory makes a feeble attempt on occasion, like suggesting we “flatten the wage curve”, but he doesn’t offer any specifics as to how that would be accomplished within our Constitutional framework.
If this were a discussion about providing for those who, because of physical or mental deficiencies, cannot provide for themselves vs. not doing so, I could understand the impasse, but that’s not the case.
Agreed Spook, and that was the point of my post. Obama does not have any serious plans to address these issues, nor do his followers even care. To them it’s just a sport – bashing the cartoonish perception they have of conservatism, without a single thought towards actual policies. I have grown very tired of it.
See, this is why I was hesitant to try to provide a sweeping generalization of my political philosophy in the first place. I provided a more in-depth explanation than you yourself did, answered the couple of questions you asked me afterwards, and then you wandered away like the topic was no longer of any interest to you only to post weeks later in a different thread about my “feeble” attempts to explain myself.
It becomes rapidly apparent when talking to you guys that every time the subject magically changes to a discussion of broad, sweeping political philosophies, it has little to do with any interest in talking about my grand plan for the universe and everything to do with avoiding the particular topic being discussed at the time. I fell for it one time and wasted some portion of my life humoring you, but I am now firmly convinced that you are one of many here who complain incessantly about the lack of people willing to honestly debate with you while simultaneously scrambling desperately away when somebody tries to have an honest debate with you. We keep ending up back at the whole “two political philosophies” crap because a bunch of you have canned responses for a specific platform and are confounded when somebody comes here and doesn’t conform to the Democratic Party line. I mean, the post you just replied to was Cluster demanding that we defend Obama!
I keep getting called a drone, but you guys are so invested in a competitive us versus them mentality that you can’t grasp that people like you on both sides are wrecking this country. I mean, can somebody explain to me why huge portions of this country share (one way or the other) the exact same, incredibly strong opinion on issues ranging from free trade agreements to environmental regulations to gun control to abortion to capital punishment to gay marriage to foreign policy to immigration? How can anybody try to relate all of those issues to one central concept? Somebody is going to try to come in and mumble something about the Constitution and Liberty, but the Constitution doesn’t have a thing to say about a bunch of those issues (unless you want to tell me how it says that we should execute people, how it protects fetuses when citizenship is awarded at birth, how we shouldn’t have tariffs with countries with cheap manufacturing, etc.).
Our politicians are a bunch of useless children who are incapable of doing anything useful because that’s what the public keeps voting for.
….it has little to do with any interest in talking about my grand plan for the universe and everything to do with avoiding the particular topic being discussed at the time. – Cory
I am not interested in your “grand philosophy” Cory, I simply want to hear from some Obama supporter, who can articulate what Obama’s second term position will be on three very important issues. Mainly because I don’t know what they are, and don’t believe that Obama has clarified it. I could be wrong.
Our politicians are a bunch of useless children who are incapable of doing anything useful because that’s what the public keeps voting for. – Cory
That I agree with.
See, this is why I was hesitant to try to provide a sweeping generalization of my political philosophy in the first place. I provided a more in-depth explanation than you yourself did
Cory, I’m not sure who this is directed at, me or Cluster. Regardless, I went back and re-read your previous comments, and I don’t see where you engaged in an “in-debth explanation of anything. Perhaps I missed it.
In this thread you have suggested that we flatten the wage curve, and that healthcare costs would be a good place to start raising people out of poverty. That is and always has been your MO: make generalized statements that could possibly be interesting ideas to discuss, but you never seem to be able to get from here to there, preferring instead to complain because we always call you on your unfinished ideas.
I personally don’t care if you’re a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Socialist, Marxist or some other political persuasion, but it seems to me that you are simply reluctant to discuss what you believe because of some fear that you’ll be asked to explain why you believe it. The situation we find ourselves faced with is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s a can-we-continue-on-our-present-track-and survive issue. You list lots of separate issues on which people of even like political philosophy can differ, but you don’t ever seem to be able to take a stand on the very basic principles which govern the general direction of the country. Maybe you simply confuse issues with principles. I don’t care what your position is on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc.; if you believe that we can continue to live beyond our means and spend 40% more than we take in, then you’re simply someone who has to be defeated. I have a feeling, though, that our core beliefs are not all that far apart. You’re just afraid to express and explain yours.
You are not here to debate. You are here to make pronouncements and dictates. Next?
The current congressional term. The House controlled by republicans, the Senate the republicans have more than enough to sustain a filibuster. Yet they gave in on everthing. Name one accoplishment this Congress has. Other than a continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Anything?
A whole of talk and no action.
Sure Newt can talk. He is a very good talker. Lets say his talk is good enough to get him into the Oval Office. What does anyone expect to change? What part of the progressive agenda do you think Newt will start rolling back?
I think Newt will get very serious about entitlement reform, immigration reform, and regulatory reform, in addition to putting a fear into Iran, Pakistan, etc. As he has said before, if you want to manage the economy, Romney is a good choice, but if you want to reform it, vote for Newt.
I heard O’Reilly interview Newt last night, and I agree with every position he takes on nearly every issue. I also like the fact that he does talk about climate change, because conservatives need to inject ourselves in that debate and expose the liberals for their blatant dishonesty.
Speaking of climate change, have you noticed how ClimateGate 2 is getting NO mention in the MSM?
This issue (climate change) is unraveling on them, but back to Obama’s second term. Does anyone have any idea what his plans are? Has he made any substantive speech on what his priorities will be? If Obama plans on the same old, same old for his second term – Newt will tear him up.
Spook, how do you defend the indefensible? I’m sure Thomas and Wallace will give it the old “I’m better educuted than you try” though.
Getting back to the original thread. Newt is brilliant..he doesn’t need a teleprompter. Obama does. I hope they do debate. But I think Obama knows he is outgunned.
I have a feeling bams will be “sick” on debate days. LOL.
There are no teleprompters at the debates. Get a clue Chrissy,
Awww…is someone grumpy?
“Newt is brilliant..he doesn’t need a teleprompter.” You do realize that there aren’t any teleprompters at the debates, and Obama handled the last debates just fine, if I recall correctly he seems to have won last time. Please don’t nominate Newt, his brain is too powerful, lol. It will be pretty hard for any republican to win, most people remember why we are in this situation in the first place and it didn’t happen on Obama’s watch.
and Obama handled the last debates just fine, if I recall correctly he seems to have won last time.
Given that McCain was an awful debater, that’s not really saying much.
You are right. He only made it much worse. Giving an opportunity for even a squish like Romney Mitt to be president. The repubs could not have done this as incompetant as they are. They needed someone even more incompetant than they.
Face it, bams is toast in 2012. Maybe you guys will get your revolution when he looses. It’s your only hope
So bloody, do you care to answer my question? What is Obama’s second term agenda in regards to entitlement reforms, immigration policy and the economy?
I know it’s hard to fathom, but Obama and supreme court justice John Roberts both went to the same law school. They were both trained to debate very complex issues even when the facts are against them.
The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout. If Newt does get the nomination (he probably won’t since the GOP elite have already decided Romney) the debates will once again show how pointless debates are for accomplishing anything.
Bardolf, while I was in the service, I had the honour of escoting a friend of mine to West Point. I stepped insinde the main doors and spent approximately one hour inside.
Does that qualify me as have gone to West Point? LOLzer
;P
If you put you went to West Point are your resume would you be lying?
The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
Is there any reason to believe he didn’t?
Let’s recall that Obama actually had a message that resonated with many people in 2008, and his blatant incompetence was not yet known. Obama will not be able to defend his record, nor does he have any new ideas. Newt will tear him up on every issue, not too mention that Newt actually has some very interesting and refreshing ideas to offer. Any debate with Obama and Newt will be very much one sided – in favor of Newt
Here’s one new idea – How about if build the fence, secure the border, than address the illegal immigrants here in a humane manner. Those that have obeyed the law and have been here for some time, will be handled differently than those that have violated laws. Not exactly new, but at least it’s a common sense approach.
Or how about this – let’s stop picking winners and losers and let the bankruptcy laws, and the justice department manage the private sector. Now that would be refreshing.
Or how about treating terrorism as an act of war, rather than a criminal offense, and using enhanced interrogation techniques. I will give Obama props for letting the military continue their pursuit of valuable targets. He has been more hawkish than I thought, and certainly more so than what he campaigned on.
walleye
ALL ILLEGALS have VIOLATED the LAW
“Newt actually has some very interesting and refreshing ideas to offer.” LOL
Neither side has interesting or refreshing ideas, the ideas will be the same as they have been for the last 20 years. The liberals will vote Obama and the conservatives will vote against Obama, the swing voters will decide who gets elected. Which will be Obama, unless someone comes out of the blue that has actual charisma, ability, and electability, I don’t see that happening.
Neither side has interesting or refreshing ideas, – bloody
What a difference four years makes – wow. It use to be that Obama was “The One We Have All Been Waiting For” – Now, he is just another politician who will win because no one else is any better.
Lowered expectations indeed.
“The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
Is there any reason to believe he didn’t?”
I love this conspiracy theory, Obama only got where he is because he is black, thank goodness he is the only black guy in America. LOL So which is it, is he an evil genius secret muslim who stole power in America from its rightful christian masters or a dumb guy who was handed the most powerful position in the world because he is black.
Or maybe, just maybe, he is a good politician. It is almost inconcievable to conservatives that he may just be a guy who is good at politics who disagrees with them.
BPS
still ranting about conspiracy “theories” ?
sounds like you are stuck on stupid.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX //Moderator
“The only reason to think Newt would handily defeat Obama in any debate is to believe that Obama got through Harvard as an affirmative action handout.
57 states, uh uh ummmm, teleprompters in 6th grade classes never employed in private business, community agitator, wright……
sounde logical to be.
Newt would give an ironing to the empty suit.
Stumpy, I think the photo of the group in the White House War Room during the Bin Laden assassination represents how most of us view Obama. He’s sitting there in his golf jacket, having just been dragged off the golf course because someone on his staff thought he probably ought to be in the photo. It’s gotten hard to decide whether he’s the most dangerous President ever or the most inconsequential.
jr
both at the same time.
“Or maybe, just maybe, he is a good politician.”
On this one statement I have to agree as long as you include his entire team from his days in Chicago all the way to the most powerful office in the world–it was a team of great political maneuvering riding on the back of feeble message, personal destruction of opponents (not issues or ideas), and general dislike of the previous occupant of the Oval Office.
But what now? What does he have this go-round except the politics of personal destruction? Of split & pit groups of people against each other?
You forgot about bams knocking a lot of his opponets off the ballots completely. He was known for that.
It’s the chicago way dude!
Yes! everything is a conspiracy and its impossible that the Democrats just had a better candidate in 2008, and will have one again in 2012.
You’re really grasping at the straws here GMB. Good luck with your sitting out the election campaign.
“The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
…Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: ‘I think they ended up with a very good state senator.’ ”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5693903.story
And the same can be said about every race he could get away with this type of behavior including wonderful underhand tactics like getting California Judge Robert Schnider to open sealed divorce records (via proxy) to get his Republican competitor to drop out.
But then again~it must be a conspiacy and there is nothing to see here. BTW, all of this is still available from the Chicago Trib. archives and I have worked for them–they are no right wing biased source–far from it.
GMB, Barry knocked ALL of his opponents off the ballot to be elected to the Illinois Senate—the only way he could win was to run unopposed, in the state that knows him best—-and then got rid of Jack Ryan to win the national seat.
So neocon is it even possible in your mind that he may just be a guy who is good at politics who disagrees with you?
Politics? LOL Heck no. Taking vacations and playing golf? Heck Yes.
FORE!!!!!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX //Moderator
No, a marxist, muslim, usurper……a Manchurian pResident. an enemy of freedom and the constitution.
a racist, divider, a class pimp divider.
good riddance to him in 2012.
Ann Coulter Gets Bleeped Out on ‘Morning Joe’ for Calling John McCain a ‘( self moderated) Bag’
compliments of the NEW and IMPROVED Neocon1
PS
I agree with Ann
wind bag?
gas bag?
(self moderated) bag?
lol.
“Politics? LOL Heck no. Taking vacations and playing golf? Heck Yes.
FORE!!!!!”
So should I just go back a couple of years and copy and paste your defense of Bush and all of his vacations, it would save me time.
“feeble message, personal destruction of opponents (not issues or ideas), and general dislike of the previous occupant of the Oval Office.”
So unlike anything that conservative on this blog do. LOL I haven’t seen a single personal attack against Obama on this blog in several seconds. LOL
Sure Thomas be my guest. If you can find any. Good Luck. Besides the media did a bang up job on Bush for taking very infrequent vacations and I do believe Bush stopped golfing altogether because of media critisism.
Ahh but facts rarely have any place in the leftist world.
Time to plan that next vacation!!
All hail king putt!!!!!
GMB
more O FRAUD……he calls EVERY trip some sort of govt work so he can CLAIM he was “working” while taking the whole Posse with him to swim and golf.
W on the other hand was not in some exotic place or Europe spending BILLIONS.
He was actually working at his ranch or camp David.
GMB,
I want to know why you call people by different names?
Why is that Thomas?
ya usually gotta pay for this kind of comedy
As some call for bold strokes, Obama sticks with vacation plans
August 10, 2011|By Peter Nicholas
When it comes to curbing unemployment, President Obama “will not rest” until everyone looking for a job can find one, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.
A couple of hours later, the White House put out an announcement that the president will soon begin a nine-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard.
So you call me “Thomas”….
surely, you must have some sort of evidence for this right? Is it possible that you can provide this evidence?
Rule 406
Habit, routine, practice.
Educate yourself. LOL
Well, you have to understand here. The rules for libbies are vastly different than the rules for conservatives. If Bush spent a week at Crawford talking with foriegn leaders thats still a vacation.
If barky o’bambams takes a 3 day campaign trip and works in one Mr.Trumka for a ten minute interview then its a work trip.
See how easy that is?
Oh stop with the BS lies about Bush at Crawford talking to foreign leaders….blah blah blah…
do you even believe half the bs you post? or do you wake up deciding to lie all day everyday?
you’re truly a sad human being.
Thomas
Visitors to the Bush Crawford, TX ranch have included:
•Russian President Vladimir Putin, November 2001
•British Prime Minister Tony Blair, April 2002
•Saudi King Abdullah, April 2002, April 2005
•Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, August 2002
•Chinese President Jiāng Zémín, October 2002
•Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, February 2003
•Australian Prime Minister John Howard, May 2003
•Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi Jun’ichirō, May 2003
•Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, July 2003
•Mexican President Vicente Fox, March 2004, March 2005
•Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, April 2004
•Spanish King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía, November 2004
•Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, March 2005
•Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, April 2005
•Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, August 2005
•German Chancellor Angela Merkel, November 2007[12]
•Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, February 2008[13]
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_days_has_Obama_taken_vacation#ixzz1f8DF1xy0
so what are you trying to prove?
your own damn link states that President Bush took a total of 879 vacation days while in office for years…..that’s 2.5 years!!!
seriously, i could care less how many vacation days any president spends, they deserve every day of it.
Only conservative kooks like you care and make an issue out of it. Then you wonder why you lose elections and why your own GOP considers you fringe.
Good luck with your sitting out the election campaign.
“you’re truly a sad human being.”
Thats the best you have Thomas? LOLzer You are loosing your edge.
Face it, barky is toast in 2012. Your only consolation is you will probably get Romney Mitt for potus. Some change huh?
Enjoy.
You accused me of lying. I provided you with proof and the link to that proof. What is your problem Thomas?
James squeals: so what are you trying to prove?
Well, it was not TRYING to prove, but actually PROVING, that you are an ignorant liar who doesn’t care enough about the truth to even find out what you are saying if you can say something ugly.
What did you say? Oh stop with the BS lies about Bush at Crawford talking to foreign leaders….blah blah blah…
do you even believe half the bs you post? or do you wake up deciding to lie all day everyday?
And when it is pointed out to you that Bush DID host many many foreign dignitaries and leaders, you whine that these were still “vacation days”. Yeah, playing host to a foreign leader is just like playing golf with your buddies—-no stress, no work, no hassle, right?
And then you say a president deserves all the vacation days he may choose to take.
You’re just a mess, aren’t you “James”?
GMB
in one Mr.Trumka for a ten minute interview then its a work trip.
or a two minute phone call authorizing the OWS and a 500 Mil ck.to the unions.
hey doofus, maybe you should call me by my name.
I don’t call you neocon1 do I?
and Romney has NO chance in hell to beat this incumbent. Obama will get a second term, and you’ll be the one enjoying 4 more years of Progressives…
I love it!
LOLzer whatever you say Thomas. I would recomend getting a new screen name already. This one is going stale fast.
and you’ll be the one enjoying 4 more years of Progressives…
I love it!
And what specifically will you love about it, Jame, besides rubbing Conservatives noses in it, that is? Surely you must have some idea what you’d like to see Obama accomplish if given another 4 years.
GMB, let’s not forget the libbies blasted Bush for playing golf while our brave soldiers were dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush stopped playing golf.
Now, these same mindless drones are silent when it comes the Rock Star, the Once We’ve Been Waiting For, the Sort of a god, the One, The Chosen One, etc. etc.
You are right. The rules for the libs are different. Look at Cain and Clinton. Clinton’s affairs were “his private life” and now it is open season on Cain.
They are a bunch of hypocrites and the useful idiot drones give them a pass every time.
Bush quit playing golf and took up riding the bicycle. He rode almost daily and had to be taken to Maryland for his riding time. Do you have a problem with that? I don’t.
But we are talking about liberal reaction to Bush and then different treatment for their own…..
… I did not expect you to get it.
Evidently, Bush playing golf miffed a bunch of libs or were they just looking to play politics and their world of political gotcha?
But again, these libs are silent as their chosen one plays round after round. Why can’t you recognize your party’s hypocrisy when it is so blatant? Or are you just willing to look the other way?
Lets not forget the auto pen. If bams is on vacation and signs a bill with the autopen. its a work day.
FORE!!!!
Yup
again truth to power and FRAUD!
Chris Christie Tears Into Obama: ‘What the Hell Are We Paying You For?’
“a bystander in the Oval Office”
Well so far James, Cory, patriot and bloody have not responded to my question – leading me to believe that Obama has no plans for a second term, or that his minions really don’t care about policy, and would prefer to lash out at their comical perception of conservatism. Either way – the country loses.
ahhh those silly “students”
Chant: “Death to England”
UK responds: “Outraged”
Telegraph: Tear down flag and loot Queen’s picture…
cluster
see cornel wests rant above.
that with union thuggery, and the OWS are his plans for the next 4 years if elected.
they know that,……… chirp chirp tweet tweet crickets.
November 29, 2011
Obama, the BAD Dream
By William L. Gensert
Barack Obama is a dream. In 2008, the dream was hope and change. In 2012, it will be progress, thwarted by evil partisans and selfish greed. As Gertrude Stein said, “there is no there there.” He needs enemies to draw attention from his lack of depth, for he is truly a mile wide and an inch deep. He is an illusion — always appearing to be more than he is, always, more promise than reality. He is, and always has been, the sum projection of what others want him to be. Barack Obama doesn’t exist, except in the hearts and minds of minions and sycophants.
Many ignore the truth, disregarding Mr. Obama’s abject failure as president. Those of us with our eyes open, though, see right through the man. A transparent presidency is the one promise he kept, for he is the original evaporated man. Though he seemed so substantial at first, with the passage of time, it is obvious how much less there is to him. What we saw in the beginning was simply a projection of our own hopes and dreams.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/obama_the_dream.html#ixzz1f8J2TRtL
Iran will start a war soon. If not with Israel then with The United States. I hope Germany is involved in the fighting to. That way Thomas can’t run away from it. LOL
Those Moussad boys and girls are tearing it up over there. Would not be surprised if airstrikes are not needed at all.
Kumi Ori!
Oh yeah
De-Nuking Iran One Baghdadbobbian Blast at a Time
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/de-nuking_iran_one_baghdadbobbian_blast_at_a_time.html#ixzz1f8NJniLs
Even Gallup, which is biased torwards the donkyrats says bams is toast.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/obamas-job-approval-drops-below-carters
Below jimmuhs? nevah!!
Obama’s Winning Election Strategy Revealed
godfatherpolitics.com ^ | Nov 28, 2011 |
When someone has to use a teleprompter all the time, it’s because he doesn’t believe what he’s reading. The words are not his own. People who know and believe a certain way don’t need notes. You know they believe what they’re saying because the words roll of their tongue. There is passion in their words and fire in their eyes.
President Obama has a love/hate relationship with the presidency. As a Leftist, he believed coming into office that he could change the world by executive fiat. He would speak and the laws would change. It didn’t happen. Sure, he’s gotten some legislation passed, but it’s been hard. He’s not used to hard. You can tell by how much he likes to play. He’s not engaged.
Obama doesn’t have a feel for what America is about. He wasn’t raised in a pro-American environment. He grew up and surrounded himself with Leftists. These people hate America and want it to be relegated to the dustbin of history.
There aren’t enough people in America who fit the Leftist profile to make an easy sweep of Leftist policies. But that’s beginning to change.
Daniel Pipes encapsulates what he calls “Obama’s Leftist Conundrum”:
On the one hand, as a Leftist he despises the United States and sees it as a force for ill in the world. On the other, as president, [he] is judged by how well the country fares during his tenure.
Logically, he cannot reconcile the contradiction of these two imperatives: If he wants to be reelected and celebrated as a great leader, he has to forward American interests; but if he wants to implement his preferred policies, he subverts the country and fouls his nest.
This means that if President Obama is to win the presidency again and implement the Leftist worldview that he envisions will bring all of his ideological training to fruition, he has to make an aggressive political decision. He must decide what group of voters will help him further his agenda. Thomas Edsall, surprisingly from the New York Times, writes an insightful article. It’s titled “The Future of the Obama Coalition.”
“For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.”
“All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
Presently, we are a 50-50 nation. Fifty percent of voters have no economic skin in the game. Then there are the government employees who depend on taxes to keep them employed. Talk about tax cuts scares them. With revenue down, they will be affected first. Nearly 50 percent of Americans don’t pay a dime in federal taxes. Once we reach a tipping point, that is, once that number goes over 50 percent (it’s around 47 percent), the game is nearly over. It becomes an election of sheep and wolves, and we’re the sheep.
“Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. . . . Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority.”
We’re lunch. Obama understands this very simple principle. He is counting on the wolves to vote en masse while hoping that the sheep will divide their vote.
It becomes an election of sheep and wolves, and we’re the sheep.
Armed sheep.
“Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority.””
Unfortunately we have one political party doing just that and another that doesn’t seem to have the courage to mount any kind of opposition.
Blind faith in the repub party to actually make a stand? HAH! And Double HAH!.
surprise surprise
Convicted Felon and Democrat Strategist Robert Creamer Visits White House Five Times in August–Tie to #Occupy?
by Joel B. Pollak
Michelle Malkin reports today, based on the Obama administration’s latest document dump of visitor logs, that convicted fraudster and community organizer Robert Creamer has visited the White House sixty times since January 2009–five times in August 2011 alone.
Iran are you listening??
ONR-Funded Guided Rockets Hit Fast-Moving Targets in Test
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
ARLINGTON, Va.—A weapon prototype developed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) successfully hit two high-speed boat targets during recent testing in Point Mugu, Calif. “It’s a fire-and-forget weapon,” said Ken Heeke,
the ONR program officer for the Low-Cost Imaging Terminal Seeker (LCITS). “No longer do you have to continue to monitor the target after you’ve fired the weapon. You can move on to the next threat with the assurance that the rocket will hit the target.”
forgot this
http://www.youtube.com/usnavyresearch#p/search/0/kC4W11cVz3Q
“It becomes an election of sheep and wolves, and we’re the sheep.
Armed sheep.”
What a surprise, a conservative will threaten to use violence when they lose a democratic election.
Cue the no election a conservative loses was democratic conspiracy talk.
bloodyPstump
What a surprise, a conservative will threaten to use violence when they lose a democratic election.
HUH???
Cornel West: Ultimate Push for Entitlements Will Be ‘Fought in the Streets’ by Occupy Movement
“Poor children need…a war against poverty.”
co nel is a conservative???
Where did Spook threaten to use violence? He just stated a fact. You are getting closer to edge again Thomas.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”
stumpy, are you accusing Ben Franklin of being a violent person?
He was the first to accurately describe “democracy”. At the time of our founding, “democracy” and “Democrats” were considered offensive and used as an insult to those against liberty.
3 close associates of DNC’s 2012 co-chair indicted…
The CHICKENSsssss have come to Rooooostt
Obama‘s Approval Rating Finally Drops Below Carter’s: Worst of Any President at This Stage of His Term
No teleprompter?
Rut Ro
What a surprise, a conservative will threaten to use violence when they lose a democratic election. – moron
Threaten violence? How about actually engaging in violence as the liberal OWS crowd does when it doesn’t get it’s way.
Barney Frank may be the smartest democrat of them all – he is abandoning the sinking ship before going down with it. The voters will not be kind to democrats in 2012.
shhhhhhhh
He’s out driving around since gas is down to $3.10 per gallon!!!!
The DJIA is not the economy.
Gasoline is nationally @ 3.447/gal, and it was $2.70 this time last year.
You two have the combined wattage of compact fluorescent light bulb.
And the civility of a long shoreman
Let’s see a show of hands on who liked Christie’s comment the other day – “What the hell are we paying you for?”
Absolutely priceless!
didn’t you predit, or guarantee that McCain would win the election in 2008?
I did think McCain might win – I just underestimated how many stupid people live in this country.
It never occurred to you that you’re the stupid ones? It must be that they are stupid right?
You must be the definition of partisan hack
Cap’n Cant
You obviously can’t do a simple search or are a liar and hope people won’t call you out on it.
the average price right now, as of November 28th, 2011 is 3.30 per gallon.
Nice try though.
Cap’n Can’t
so the DJIA is not the economy, but when it goes down about 300 points, Spook and every other right winger on this site touts it as the sign of the coming collapse…..hmmm…interesting.
You must not own any stock right, since the DJIA is not the economy. I am sure you are doing just swell investing in other things…..
It’s obvious at this point you’re a talking points machine, so why don’t you run along and try to pass off your lies somewhere else.
Considering the inexperience of Obama and the results of his current three year tenure – I think it’s obvious who the stupid ones were. But thanks for playing James.
punk bitch thomasjames
if gas is $3.30/gallon then why aren’t you accusing bardolf of lying?
Or could he be looking at gas where Spook lives? Or perhaps he’s relying on information that is not as accurate and is therefore incorrect or possible mistaken. Since I trust his intelligence more than your racist-infused hate screeds I’m going with bardolf was making a general point using sarcasm and was not intended as definitive.
My price is from AAA as of this morning for the national average for mid-grade. http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp
Cap’n Oblivious
Spook lives in a particular town, Ft. Wayne not the national average town (which of course you are wrong about as well).
http://www.ftwaynegasprices.com/ shows at Kroger the price is 3.08 and at Sam’s Club 3.10.
You know there are remedial courses at community colleges to help people like you get their GED.
“Since I trust his intelligence.” – Captain
Okay, I’ll join the right wing team today if you’re going to be that nice. Of course Newt is neither a social or a fiscal conservative so I’m going to have to vote for Herman Cain.
Cap’N liar,
HA! not only are you a liar, but you’re a secret weasel liar….
Mid grade? Yes! since the majority of americans get mid grade gasoline and since when people talk about the national average, they give the price of mid grade….
Thanks for playing, now that I called you out on your childish lie, get lost and come back under a different thread.
Punkassbitch,
Once again, bardolf uses a selective criteria (to make a point using sarcasm, never intended as a definitive) by picking the two price outliers and he’s right as rain, but I select a national average using less restrictive criteria and I’m a liar. What part of Iran are you from?
(bardolf, bet you wish you’d have read my entire post before responding huh?)
He’s out driving around since gas is down to $3.10 per gallon!!!!
It was $3.10 a couple days ago. It went up to $3.35 at most of the stations around here yesterday.
Cap’N Scaredy cat,
but I select a national average using less restrictive criteria and I’m a liar. What part of Iran are you from?
You select the national average for MID grade gasoline…which is not something people use to cite the national price of gasoline dork! ha, looks like you really took it to heart that someone actually called you out on your lie huh? I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings dork.
And Iran? where did that come from? If you think Gunnison, Colorado is Iran then so be it. I live on the foothills of Crested Butte mountain you doofus….look it up.
Spook,
“James” seems to be following a very familiar pattern; start off sounding reasonable, asking for more details, not offering much substance but challenging minutia rather than debating substance. Begin to insult and belittle, become rigid, inflexible and shrill. Resort to repetitive ad hominem growing increasingly vile.
When called on the striking similarities in infantile argumentation, pedantic structure and vile themes he uses the same phrase; “provide the evidence.”
Have I forgotten anything here?
Now, who does this remind us of, and why wait for the inevitable banning?
Yes, I did forget one thing; makes reference to a geographic location in such a way that no local would, like misspelling the town in which he was supposedly born, making illogical references to distances that might appear correct on a map but are physically problematic in the corporeal world, or referring to a geographic location in a redundant fashion like butte mountain or living “on” the foothills proving he’s never been there.
So predictable!
Count of Contact,
Yes, I did forget one thing; makes reference to a geographic location in such a way that no local would, like misspelling the town in which he was supposedly born
to my recollection, I have never stated where I was born….you want to tell us where you got that from?
making illogical references to distances that might appear correct on a map but are physically problematic in the corporeal world
Maybe you are hallucinating, or just plain drunk. When did I ever do that?
or referring to a geographic location in a redundant fashion like butte mountain or living “on” the foothills proving he’s never been there.
You want to bet that I do live here? I ski the mountain every winter. In fact, I actually used to work at Elevation Hotel & Spa about 5 years ago for a winter job…trust me, you’re lack of knowledge about me is hilarious, and even more funny considering you think you know….
Stick to the LIE that your buddy Cap’n stupid posted with regards to “average” gasoline prices….when he was really posting mid grade gasoline prices, and not unleaded.
So predictable!
back at ya drone!
The town and resort of Crested Butte are near Mount Crested Butte, not Crested Butte Mountain, and anyone who has lived for even a week IN the foothills of any mountain area knows that the term is IN and not ON.
Furthermore, the foothills are, technically, along the base of the mountain range itself—in this case, the Rocky Mountain Range—-and once you get into the mountains, well, you’re in the mountains. So that far south, I suppose Salida would be in the foothills, for example, being located where the elevation starts to climb before entering the mountains.
Gunnison does not have ‘foothills’ nor does Crested Butte.
“James” talks like someone who does ski in a place every now and then and picks up a couple of poorly understood terms, which he uses in ignorance—-much like his politics, come to think of it.
It’s always fun to see people try to impress by making references that are simply not true. I remember reading a book where someone was driving around Hyde Park in London, but going the wrong way on a one-way street—evidently his map didn’t fill him in on crucial details like that.
“Speaking at a town hall event in South Carolina Tuesday evening, the former House Speaker shared an opinion about the network after getting stumped by a question on an HIV/AIDS vaccine.
“What you said is information that’s new to me, I don’t know enough about it to give you a direct answer,” Gingrich told the audience member. “I’m certainly sympathetic to what you just said. But one of the real changes that comes when you start running for President – as opposed to being an analyst on Fox – is I have to actually know what I’m talking about.”
That is not going to go over very will the the Fox News crowd. It has been reported that those who only watch Fox News are less informed about what is going on in the world than those who watch no TV. Interesting.
I think it’s refreshing to hear a candidate speak the truth. Obama speaks only in platitudes and emotionally driven rhetoric. Except of course when he touted his 2009 stimulus and spoke at length about shovel ready jobs, when in fact he had no idea what a shovel ready job was.
Why would I care about any of that Wallace? You need to get a life, and a personality.
Wallace,
I just don’t care what a few hundred people in NJ think. I am surprised (well not really) that you do. I have a feeling your life revolves around tedious things.
Wow wally, you still can’t tell the difference between FACT and OPINION. Polls are OPINIONS and not FACT.
So you are advocating that we should be like the average Democrat voter?
Warning: this is not a black only thing. This accurately represents the ignorance of the average Democrat voter. There are white women who do and expect the same – they just get their own reality shows or their 15 minutes of fame.
Wow, wally! I see you need to really turn on the spin machine in a pathetic attempt at trying to make sense – trying to turn opinion into facts, typical liberal tactic.
I see you demonstrate the ignorance of the average democrat voter. Way to go!
Let’s go over this again, wally, since you are again a little slow….
Polls represent OPINION. The questions maybe “factual” but the answers are OPINIONS.
I can ask a factual question: “Is Wally a drone?”
No matter the fact that you are, the answers to the question represents the OPINIONS of the group that I asked.
And I have never tried to say facts are opinions. That is your twisted and deflective conclusions, not mine.
Thanks for playing, you lose again. Now stop this thread before you lose it again.
perhaps wally, you need to back up your pathetic ASSertion with some proof of your “facts”.
Truth is you won’t and you haven’t.
The “FACT that polls show” is not the same as “polls are FACTS”, as you erroneously keep repeating and hoping polls will become facts. Polls are still a collection of opinions.
Geez, you are dense.
Oh, so now you add more details instead of trying to generalize and present OPINION as FACTS as you did before. There is hope after all.
“People either get them right or they don’t; the ones who get them wrong the most are Fox News viewers. This has been shown over and over again.”
Okay, if this has been shown over and over again, then it would not be a problem for you to prove it, like I have asked you before. Let us see the details of these polls. Who did the polls? Plus, show us how accurately these polls reflect the entire audience of FOX viewers. Show us there is no way that these “knowledge polls” cannot be manipulated.
Were these people polled college graduates? Some college? High school? High school drop outs?
I bet you that I can poll an audience that says the world is flat, we did not land on the moon, Bush lost the 2000 election, 9/11 was an inside job and all of them are lefty drones like yourself.
All you need is the right carefully crafted sample and you can get the results you like. Geez, are you that gullible to take that much stock in polls? Psychology 101 demonstrates the weaknesses of polling.
This is another request for information (see the third paragraph). Are you going to duck and dodge like last time and claim “my proof was deleted” (like “my dog ate my homework”)?
Gee Wally. You are so easily swayed.
There is no proof that FOX news is the source of the misinformation. Do they or you have a news report that they state Hussein was involved in 9/11? NOPE. So what, if they watch FOX news, they have more attractive and less annoying commentators. It is a coincidence without hard evidence.
these polls are the equivalent of saying that eating ice cream increases your chances of drowning, since there are more drownings in the summer months and ice cream consumption increases during the summer.
If only you had some FOX news reports that actually misinformed people to be the actual source of the misinformation. As stated earlier all polls can be manipulated, just like you drones are so easily manipulated.
swing and a miss, Wally. Why do you always find it necessary to deflect from the topic?
“There is no proof that FOX news is the source of the misinformation.”
Well, several of the pollsters did posit that the causation could be in the other direction: The chronically misinformed seek out Fox News because it tells them what they want to hear. In fact, I’d wager that’s true of you, as it certainly fits with your patterns here.
Still, poll after poll after poll finds that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed, have the least knowledge, and are most likely to believe things that are objectively untrue, and the best defense you can come up with is “it’s just a coincidence.” That would have to become considerably stronger just to rise to the level of very weak. But I understand that it’s the best you can do.
By the way, here’s a lengthy and humorous rundown of just some of the many, many factually incorrect information that Fox News gives to its poor, poor viewers. You’ll find some of your very favorite talking points in there, which leads me to predict that your next post is going to be a great example of the blowback effect.
Oh, and I notice you called for the moderator to delete all the facts that made you look so awful here. I knew it wouldn’t be long before your cowardly ways took over. You can’t help what you are, and what you are is a sniveling little coward. Deal with it, loser.
“Oh, and I notice you called for the moderator to delete all the facts that made you look so awful here.”
Gee wally, lying again I see. Again, coincidence and circumstancial is not FACT.
Still I could create a poll that would show CNN, MSNBC and any other liberal outlet to be misinformed. As I said, polls can be manipulated very easily to the point that people believe them as fact as you have demonstrated.
BTW, I don’t watch FOX news.
Here is something very interesting about your sources: Jon Stewart (get real he is an entertainer and the “knowledge polls”):
While he was crossing swords with “Fox News Sunday’s” Chris Wallace, “The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart made the following claim about the alleged ignorance of Fox News viewers that, on close examination, turned out to be wide of reality. According to the American Spectator:
“Who is the most consistently misinformed media viewers? (sic) The most consistently misinformed? Fox!!! Fox viewers!!! Consistently!!! Every poll!!!”
Inexplicably, Wallace let that one slide. However, according to Newsbusters, at least two fact checkers suggest that Stewart’s claim is wide of the mark.
Rich Noyes, writing for Newsbusters, points out that Stewart was relying on a survey conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) whose methodology has been called into question.
“For example, Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that ‘most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit’ and that ‘the economy is getting worse.’ Agreeing with those statements got you branded as ‘misinformed’ based on the authority of a) the Congressional Budget Office on ObamaCare’s impact on the deficit, and b) the Bureau of Economic Analysis declaring that the recession officially ended in June 2009.
“As anyone who closely followed the health care debate understood, the nonpartisan CBO was required to accept the budgetary assumptions of the partisan Democrats who crafted the ObamaCare bill, so it’s hardly a sign of ignorance to believe the bill will drain the Treasury like every other big entitlement program in the past 75 years.
“As for feeling that the economy is still getting worse, public confidence is usually one of the last indicators to turn positive after a recession. After the 1990 recession officially ended, huge majorities of the public in late 1991 and in 1992 still told pollsters that they felt the U.S. was in either a ‘recession’ or a ‘depression’ — ‘misinformation’ that must have been spread without the Fox News Channel, which was not established until 1996.”
In other words, disagreeing with liberals would get one tagged as “misinformed,” according to the study.
Politifact came to a similar conclusion, especially where it concerned Stewart’s claim of “every poll.” While some studies placed Fox News viewers low on the informed viewer scale, others placed them much higher. Viewers of specific shows, such as “The O’Reilly Factor” and the “Sean Hannity Show,” placed higher yet.
Aaron Goldstein of the American Spectator suggests a somewhat sinister reason why the University of Maryland’s study was so skewed. It seems that its public opinion survey arm, worldopinion.org, is funded by none other than George Soros, who once compared Fox News to Nazi Germany.
Stewart, if he bothers to acknowledge this goof at all, will likely revert to what some analysts call his “clown nose on/clown nose off” routine. When caught saying a whopper or something outrageous, Stewart invariably goes into a defensive stance and claims that he is just a comedian, not really to be taken seriously. But if someone actually agrees with him, then he is a serious political analyst who skewers politics and politicians in a humorous way.
Unfortunately, much of Stewart’s left-wing, stoner, slacker audience does take him seriously and use him as a source for news, sometimes to the exclusion of other more traditional news sources. This suggest that Stewart, despite his making funny faces and habit of creating diversion, needs to be held more accountable for what he says.
Sources: A Comedian of Errors, Aaron Goldstein, The American Spectator, June 21, 2011
PolitiFact Agrees With NewsBusters: Stewart’s Claim About ‘Misinformed’ Fox Viewers ‘False’, Noel Shepherd, Newsbusters, June 20, 2011
Jon Stewart Slams Fox Viewers as Most Misinformed, But He’s the Ignorant One, Rich Noyes, Newsbusters, June 20, 2011
Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the “most consistently misinformed media viewers”, Politifact, June 20, 2011
——
As you can see polls are very easily manipulated to get the results you want, especially if you want to try and discredit a news source that is beating every liberal network across the board. I know liberals who do watch FOX news are they as misinformed as well wally?
Perhaps you watch FOX news since you are trounced and proven wrong at every turn here.
“You’ll find some of your very favorite talking points in there, which leads me to predict that your next post is going to be a great example of the blowback effect.”
I called it perfectly. And you don’t even get it.
“I know liberals who do watch FOX news are they as misinformed as well wally?”
Yes, they are. Many of the pollsters have noted that the lack of factual grounding among Fox News viewers happens across party lines and political orientation. If you watch Fox, you’re misinformed; your political outlook doesn’t matter.
Better go get the moderator again, tired. The facts are personally offending you and are being overused!
I see you cherry-picked through my response again, picking out what you wanted and ignoring all the rest that blows your stupid little argument away.
My response shows that polls even “knowledge polls” (as you erroneously call them) can be manipulated to give them the results they want and use those results to create “facts” (used very loosely) for dumbed down talking points for useful idiot drones.
Congratulations, you fill their position perfectly.
I see you are still lying about me running to the moderator to protect your dainty little ego. If you have noticed (of course you didn’t since you ignore 99% of all posts) I asked the moderator to keep some of your posts up in order for every to see your lies, your foolishness and your massive meltdowns. I have never asked the moderator to delete your posts You have done that to yourself.
Here wally is the reader’s digest version that your simple little mind could understand. From your source Jon Stewart (giggle):
Politifact Headline: Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the “most consistently misinformed media viewers”
POLITIFACT EDITOR’S NOTE: On the June 21, 2011, edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart accepted our False verdict and apologized, saying, “I defer to (PolitiFact’s) judgment and apologize for my mistake. To not do so would be irresponsible.”
So reporting a false and MISLEADING story was not a mistake? How many of Jon Stewarts viewers are misinformed especially after admitting to purposefully misleading viewers such as yourself, wally?
Like I said, I called it perfectly, and you don’t even get it. You provided an excellent example of the blowback effect: When you are shown to be factually incorrect, you cling even harder to your falsehoods.
You still haven’t done anything to counter the mountains of evidence of how uninformed Fox News viewers are; you’ve just done your standard “those facts don’t count because they make me look bad” coward routine, and you keep insisting that facts you don’t like are opinions and not facts. It’s pitiful, really, but hey, that’s who you are.
Just for my amusement, tired, try to spin your way out of this one. You say:
“So reporting a false and MISLEADING story was not a mistake?”
As the astute (a group that does not include you, I know) may have noticed, in accepting Poitifacts claim, Stewart also pointed out the litany of Politifact articles about Fox News’s repeated lying (some of them even won the coveted Lie of the Year award). So if you want to accept that one charge against Stewart, then you need to accept that mountain of evidence proving just what I’ve been saying: That Fox News viewers are indeed more misinformed than non-Fox Viewers, and a major reason for this fact is that Fox News is a relentlessly dishonest organization.
OK, start spinning, tired. This is going to be hilarious.
Poor wally, desperately clinging to his debunked sources to protect his dainty little ego.
Jon Stewart is no journalist.
UM “polls” proven circumspect in how they interpreted their “factual question” (used their opinion to interpret answers given).
And yet, there is no proof that FOX news is the reason for “misinformation”. If a liberal politician intentionally spread lies, then he/she would have claimed to have “jumped the gun” and mispoke. Liberal news outlets claim the same excuse. But other non-liberal news outlets “intentionally lied and deceived” their viewership.
Typical liberal tactic. Polls can be easily manipulated as are the leftist mindless drones that regurgitate their talking points developed from them. Again, wally, you have been lied to and made a fool of by your own talking points.
Now, step back, take a breath before you have another meltdown after I have shattered your dainty ego. I don’t need to spin my way out of anything. I have been consistent in my arguments and my proof has matched them. You on the other hand keep changing and dodging and only accepting facts that you want and ignore others, especially those that prove you wrong.
Typical and Pathetic.
“Jon Stewart is no journalist.”
Never said that he was. He is, however, correct in pointing out the mountain of facts showing how Fox NEws lies to its viewers and how in part as a result of those lies, Fox News viewers are the most misinformed consumers of news media.
“UM “polls” proven circumspect in how they interpreted their “factual question” (used their opinion to interpret answers given).”
That’s a lie, but considering that the facts stack up against you, lying is all you have. See also: The blowback effect. But no, they did not use their opinion; they used facts–verified facts–and studied how well people’s responses lined up with the facts. This is too complicated and too factual for you, though.
“And yet, there is no proof that FOX news is the reason for “misinformation”.”
Except for that mountain of evidence already provided. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, tired. But I know how much you hate facts.
“I don’t need to spin my way out of anything.”
Then why are you trying so hard to do so? Why have you avoided the question of how you can accept Politifact’s one charge against Jon Stewart and ignore its massive list of charges against Fox News? Oh, I know why–because you can’t own up to your ignorance and hypocrisy.
“I have been consistent in my arguments”
That’s true, you’ve been consistent with your incorrect arguments.
“and my proof has matched them.”
Nope. You haven’t even offered proof. All you’ve offered is dodges, talking points, and, of course, the blowback effect. The closest you came to offering proof is a copy-and-paste from Newsbusters (hahaha!) whining about how terrible it is for anybody to mention that right-wing talking points are factually incorrect. It reminds me of your constant whining that factcheck.org is “liberally biased” for pointing out that right-wing talking points are factually incorrect.
Now would be a good time for you to go cry to the moderator, tired.
wally you linked to Jon Stewart as a source of proof for your erroneous argument. Apparently you thought he was to use him as proof – he reported the so called “FOX misleading headlines”.
Wally, your sources have been debunked. You just run from FACTS that you don’t like and accept little snippets you think will help keep your dainty ego intact.
Your “mountains of evidence” is about the size of an ant hill. You provided nothing but Stewart and UM “knowledge polls” both have been debunked. Your other “proof” were nothing that proved your first argument. News outlets make erroneous statements all the time. They print and announce retractions all the time. It is just like you to latch onto one news outlet and ignore all the others. If FOX news was so blatant as to report non-factual stories there would be firings for such activity. We have seen that in liberal news organizations many times – can you say Dan Rather? FOX has not had any to my knowledge, but then again I DON’T WATCH FOX NEWS!
I have offered proof you choose not to accept it as usual since it makes you look foolish and you run away from such proof. Your reading comprehension shortcomings is coming through again and now it has made you the drone we all knew you were.
So you already have melted down today in another thread. I won’t be surprised if you do it again, since your silly little argument has fallen apart.
Here is a suggestion, don’t rely on polls since they can easily be manipulated and make the you mindless leftist idiots believe what they want you to believe. All the news organizations ratings are tanking while FOX’s are climbing. We know that just irritates you leftists since your lies can’t be spread without scrutiny.
Now would be a good time to change to a new alias, since this one has damaged your dainty little ego beyond repair.
“wally you linked to Jon Stewart as a source of proof for your erroneous argument. ”
No, I linked to his rundown of some of the many, many lies Fox News tells. Come on, can’t you at least try to keep up here? You’re embarrassing yourself again.
“Wally, your sources have been debunked.”
Your little temper tantrum about being wrong is not a “debunking.” I don’t expect you to know the difference, though. It’s all part of the blowback effect.
“If FOX news was so blatant as to report non-factual stories there would be firings for such activity.”
Why would people be fired for doing what Fox News wants them to do? Don’t try to use logic, tired; you don’t understand how it works.
“I have offered proof”
Oh dear, we’re back to you not knowing the definition of the word “proof.” Which reminds me, have you learned the definition of the word “everything” yet? How about the word “may”–learned that one? HInt: Proof requires facts, not sobbing and temper tantrums. But I know how much you hate facts and think they are “overused.”
“All the news organizations ratings are tanking while FOX’s are climbing.”
What do ratings have to do with Fox News’s relentless dishonesty? I suppose one could take it as evidence that the misinformed seek out Fox News, as some researchers have posited.
This is fun, tired. Please, keep flailing and failing. It amuses me.
Wally, when it is all said and done, nothing has proved that FOX news is the “source” of the misinformation.
If you have read the “studies”, as I have, you would know that the other news outlets did not do much better. The left wing outlets were just a uninformed, although slightly less, about issues. But then again, there is still OPINION involved in the results of the poll. The answers had to be interpreted and that is a subjective action.
Polls don’t mean anything. They are easily manipulated as you drones are. I know I hurt your dainty little ego, but you need a heavy dose of reality.
Repeating your same debunked “facts” won’t make them true, you just need to accept them for what they are – mindless talking points – and move on.
“nothing has proved that FOX news is the “source” of the misinformation.”
Well, as I’ve said, the competing theory is that the already-misinformed people seek out Fox News because it tells them what they already believe, i.e. misinformation.
You’re still left trying to explain the mountains of lies that Fox News tells and why Fox News’s audience is consistently the most misinformed and incorrect about facts, often repeating untrue “facts” that Fox News broadcasts. You can’t seem to do that, though I’m greatly enjoying your efforts. You just get angry and keep providing that picture-perfect example of the blowback effect.
“The left wing outlets were just a uninformed, although slightly less, about issues.”
Thank you for admitting that Fox News is the worst. Careful, though–the facts are gong to make you angry again.
“But then again, there is still OPINION involved in the results of the poll. The answers had to be interpreted and that is a subjective action.”
Ah, now you’re back to the “facts are opinions!” dodge. If I’m polling people on what they think 2+2 equals and you tell me it equals 5, what “subjective action” is there? You gave a factually wrong answer. Facts are not opinions, tired. You really, really need to learn this.
Repeating your same debunked spins, whines, and dodges won’t make them true, you just need to accept them for what they are – mindless talking points – and move on.
“Well, as I’ve said, the competing theory is that the already-misinformed people seek out Fox News because it tells them what they already believe, i.e. misinformation.”
Wally, “theory” is not FACT! Your statement and the conclusive THEORIES are not FACTS.
Again, you have proved nothing and just regurgitate manipulated talking points.
I did not admit FOX is the worst, just that all new outlets “misinform”. Also, SUBJECTIVE interpretation of results are OPINIONS and not FACT.
You really need to understand the difference between OPINION and FACT. The results of the survey are presented as FACTS but the measurement of the survey are based on OPINION and therefore calling the results FACTS are misleading.
So, your misleading “FACTS” are completely debunked since I have managed to shoot holes in every one of your talking points. If I were a defense attorney then I have established reasonable doubt. But then again, you have not provided hard FACTS just “labeled” and misleading ones.
Give it up drone, you cannot win the FACT argument. All you have are results of manipulated polls.
Now try not to melt down again. It will only result in your tantrum of being deleted like the other tantrums you spew.
“Wally, “theory” is not FACT! Your statement and the conclusive THEORIES are not FACTS.”
The FACTS are that Fox News viewers are consistently the most misinformed consumers of news media, and that Fox News is relentlessly dishonest in what it “reports.” The theories are attempts to explain the correlation of these FACTS, and there are two theories:
1) Fox News viewers are misinformed because Fox News lies to them and they believe it
2) Already-misinformed people prefer to watch Fox News because the lies Fox reports line up well with the falsehoods those people already believe.
Oh, geez, that was pretty complicated, wasn’t it? Sorry about that.
“I did not admit FOX is the worst, just that all new outlets “misinform”.”
Yes you did. You said this:
“The left wing outlets were just a uninformed, although slightly less, about issues.”
If the “left-wing” outlets (I appreciate the implied admission that Fox News is right wing, by the way) are “slightly less” misinformed than Fox News about the issues, then that would make Fox News more misinformed, would it not?
Oops, sorry, I dipped into basic logic again. I know how much that confuses you.
“Also, SUBJECTIVE interpretation of results are OPINIONS and not FACT.”
I asked you what “subjective interpretation” there is. You can’t say. So I’ll try again, knowing you’ll dodge: What “subjective interpretation” is there to note that somebody said something factually wrong? If you say 2+2 = 5, what “subjective interpretation” is there to point out that you are factually incorrect? It was a valiant effort at spin, tired. Really, it was. Weak, of course, but not as weak as usual. But as usual, it’s a failure.
“You really need to understand the difference between OPINION and FACT.”
You’re the one trying to wave away facts as opinions. But that’s one of your preferred methods of ducking facts, so no big shocker there.
“So, your misleading “FACTS” are completely debunked”
Blowback effect. Delusion. You have not cited a single fact. I have cited lots and lots of them. Remember, tired: Saying it doesn’t make it so.
Keep trying, though. You’re providing a lot of unintentional comedy here.
There are white women who do and expect the same – they just get their own reality shows or their 15 minutes of fame.
no where in the same numbers, 12% population = 85% recipients
Wally, here are examples how the “knowledge” poll was manipulated and tabulated to give the bogus results you rely on .
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/media_misinformation_2010_vs_2.html
Sunny,
Maybe you could tell us what a shovel ready job is. Obviously Obama doesn’t know
maybe he thought they are like the $350,000.00 “job” the hospital made up for the Mooch, or the “loan” resco gave them, or the Millions for a terrorist written book about a commie for HIM.
The stimulus may not have worked as well as the President would have liked, but something had to be done. We do not know what would have happened had the President not pushed through the stimulus – and although conservatives have done nothing but criticize I didn’t hear any of them come up with alternative plans. It is easy to sit back and criticize but much more difficult to take the risk of the possible results. I hear very few conservatives accepting any blame for the disastrous results of the gutting of banking regulations during the Bush years, or the push by Bush for every American to own a home. Yet, as usual Cluster, you are quick to point out any failures by a Democratic congress.
When was the last time the US went to war and cut taxes, not once but twice?? Since when do we not, as a nation, sacrifice to pay for a war and take care of our service men and women? Since when is it acceptable for an elected official to sign a pledge to an individual that is a lobbiest? I always thought the only oath our elected officials were to take was to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. However, if the Republicans sign a pledge to a person who has neither been elected to a position nor has the approval from the people to ask for such a pledge, conservatives find this acceptable.
But to put you stressed out heart regarding the stimulus, please check out this link. Not all of your hard earned tax dollars were wasted – like they were in Iraq.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-2009-stimulus-created-zero-jobs/
velma: “I didn’t hear any of them come up with alternative plans”
Republicans in the House and in the Senate proposed plans alternative to the stimulus. They were quickly defeated by the Democrats who controlled both houses.
Look it up, you may educate yourself. Yes, criticism is easy especially when you listen to Democrat dumbed down talking points.
Uh, bush did not PUSH for everyone to own his own home. He said he thought it was a great idea, but did nothing to legislate this.
In the abstract, it IS a grand idea. It’s the execution of the idea that is and has been problematic, as it turned into federally controlled and legislated and supported social engineering. Bush did not do that.
On the contrary, he warned, repeatedly, about the inevitable problems associated with the legislation-mandated bad loans being made, and supported by Fannie and Freddy.
So sorry to shove a pesky fact into your litany of BDS ranting and lies, Velma—not that it will slow you down.
(Are you still bleating about that imaginary “deathbed divorce” thing you cling to with such passion?)
Interesting…..
…no response or acknowledgment from velma when we blew her mindless talking points out of the water.
scummy
the question should have been directed to bwany fwank,& co. the NORMAL people dont need AIDS tests or vaccines.
I believe it was Mark Twain who once mused “If you don’t read a newspaper–you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper–you are misinformed.” Update that to today and anyone that relies on a single source of information will be misinformed; nevertheless, FOX News does present a side of the stories that the MSM tries to bury. Then it is time, if interested enough, to figure out what the real story is using all available resources.
Sunny, where is the link for your claim “It has been reported that those who only watch Fox News are less informed about what is going on in the world than those who watch no TV.” or is this just another misinformed poop fling for the trolls?
db,
Velma is referring to a shoddy survey from a university in which they interviewed a few hundred people in New Jersey with questionable methods. The left-wing blogs are afire over it, but Politifact, Pew and others have all reported an entirely different profile of Fox News viewership.
Not worth your time.
And yet, CE, the results of the poll was published in Forbes. Not exactly a left wing magazine.
It has been reported that an aerospace company in Tulsa has hired a fifth-rate lawyer as part of an outreach to support the mentally deficient.
Interesting.
I love the anger coming from James, Wallace, etc. The left is realizing that Obama is not “The one they were all waiting for” and are now lashing out at their perceived cartoonish construct of what conservatism is. It’s amusing to watch.
The absent President leading the absent minded. It’s a perfect fit.
is that like the DUMB and DUMBER of American politics?