How's that pressy-attentiony thing workin' out for 'ya, Sarah? by Niki2

America loves a winner!

At least her pressy-attentiony thing isn't costing the nation trillions of dollars and putting us into perpetual debt.

Run Sarah Run!

Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 12:52 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
At least her pressy-attentiony thing isn't costing the nation trillions of dollars and putting us into perpetual debt.

You mean like Bush did? You were talking about Bush, right?

Quote:

Run Sarah Run!

Oooh, I think I'll get that on a bumper sticker. And put it on the front of my car!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 12:55 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
At least her pressy-attentiony thing isn't costing the nation trillions of dollars and putting us into perpetual debt.

You mean like Bush did? You were talking about Bush, right?

Quote:

Run Sarah Run!

Oooh, I think I'll get that on a bumper sticker. And put it on the front of my car!

Mike

No, I mean Obama. He's added more debt in 1 year than Bush has in 8.

But I see you do endorse violence against women. Figures.

Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 1:06 PM

MINCINGBEAST

But I see you do endorse violence against women. Figures.

Love the Republican strategy of advancing goons like Michael Steele and Sara Palin, and then screaming "racism!" or "sexism!" when anyone responds to the goonish things that they say. Is this political cover?

Suggests to me that 1) Republicans think that this is a very clever tactic, as often and artlessly as they use it and 2) Republicans understand these things as much as I understand women, which is to say, not at all.

Also, I endorse violence, in general.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 1:20 PM

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 1:26 PM

Quote:
No, I mean Obama. He's added more debt in 1 year than Bush has in 8.

Cites?

I've got Bush down for over $10 trillion added onto the national debt on his watch. Care to show us where Obama topped that figure in one year?

Or are you just lying again?

Quote:
But I see you do endorse violence against women. Figures.

Not quite to the degree that you do, though, with your "Two for one" t-shirt joking about killing two terrorists with one bullet when you shoot a pregnant Palestinian woman in the stomach.

But it's different when you endorse it, isn't it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 1:36 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Its a bit like watching a drunk walk across an icey street and into traffic

Thanx for my first chortle of the morning. But oh, she offers such an endless array of things to mock, it's just sooo hard to ignore them!

Ooops, here he comes to turn the thread away from the subject at hand and throw out a few meaningless snarks. And he's a Palinite? Should have figured.

Bush deficit v. Obama's? Perspective:

Quote:
The first signs of impending trouble are the exploding budget deficits themselves. They began under the parlous economic stewardship of Ronald Reagan. Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his "supply side economics" did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush's presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a "B" grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton's last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton's policy in order to revive Reagan's, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his "base" as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1022-26.htm

That was in 2004! Bush gave us the highest share of deficit-financed spending since World War II. He also left us with an economy in ruins, unemployment at huge levels, the biggest gap between rich and poor in history, bailouts, etc., and left an incoming President with a country on the brink of ruin. Nobody can estimate what the deficit would have been if Bush had remained in office, but you want to complain about he guy left holding the bag increasing it in order to get the country back on its feet? Pathetic.

I don't know if you can follow all that or not, or if you'll even try. But until we see how things are when Obama leaves office, considering what he came IN TO, you've got no legs to stand on.

If you can't follow the math, here's an easy graphic for you as to the "fiscal responsibility" of Republican Presidents:

Now, can you let us get back to discussing what the thread was originally about, or are you going to start another thread-jacking flame war?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 1:42 PM

Quote:
Not too well, I guess; she doesn't want anyone but the choir she preaches to hearing her, apparently. Nothing to do with the cheat-sheet thing on her palm, of course...

im not a 'Palin for president 2012'er, or anything.. but what is it about you people that you cannot get her off your minds!! shes not even occupying a position of government, yet you find her so threatening.. i dont get it?

and the notes on her palm thing... who cares?? are you going to start criticizing the president for his reliance on a tele-prompter?? the guy just gave a speech to a bunch of elementary students and STILL couldnt give the damn thing up!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 1:43 PM

Another handy graph:

Note that the only two times since the beginning of WWII that the debt has had a sustained UPWARD movement have both been under the stewardship of Republican presidents. Truman cut the debt down around 50% of GDP relative to its peak at over 120%, Ike cut it another 15% or so, Kennedy/LBJ roughly another 15%, Nixon a bit less, but still trending downward, Carter less still, but still down, and then Reagan shit the bed and spend like a madman, leaving Clinton to try to clean up his mess (which he did, in spades), and then Dubya came in to just wreck EVERYTHING. The guy had the Midas touch in reverse: every single thing he touched just seemed to turn to complete shit, and he handed Obama an economy that he'd just walked straight off a cliff.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 1:47 PM

http://www.aolnews.com/story/obama-palin-2012-poll/390218
and

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Trust me, if you can; NOBODY is threatend by Sarah Palin. She puts herself out there, gets attention, and in doing so finds herself almost every time becoming an object of ridicule.

Even the REPUBLICANS don't think she's qualified to be President, yet rumors persist; if the woman weren't here, there and everywhere, she wouldn't get attention. If she weren't making a fool of herself virtually every time, she wouldn't get ridiculed. Get it?

Notes on her palm is amusing because a) it's childish, and b) SHE ranted about Obama using a teleprompter. SHE has used one, too, and now resorts to cheat sheets on her PALM? That would be hysterical if ANY politician did it; admittedly for her it's not much more than a giggle, but it still gets attention.

You know, kind of "glass houses..." thing? Get it?

p.s. Given no doubt someone will question my statement that Republicans think she's unqualified, here are two cites:

Quote:
President Barack Obama would cruise to re-election in 2012 if Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee, a new poll finds.
In the hypothetical contest, Obama would defeat the Alaska governor 55 percent to 35 percent, the poll by Public Policy Polling found.

Quote:
Poll: 71% say Palin's unqualified to be president

A full 71% of respodnents, including 51% of Republcians, say Palin is not ready to occupy the White House. Palin has said it would be "absurd not to consider" a 2012 bid against President Obama.

The poll also found Palin's approval rating at a new low, with just 37% holding a favorable opinion of her. Meanwhile, 55% of respondents have an unfavorable opinion of the former Alaska Governor.

Exactly two-thirds of independents say Palin's not qualified, along with an overhwelming 91% of Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party movement receives tepid approval from the public. 35% have a favorable view of the movement, with 40% holding an unfavorable view. A slim plurality, 45%-36%, say they agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party's positions.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/80729-poll-71-say-pal
ins-unqualified-to-be-president

Should you need a grapic for that:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Not too well, I guess; she doesn't want anyone but the choir she preaches to hearing her, apparently. Nothing to do with the cheat-sheet thing on her palm, of course...

im not a 'Palin for president 2012'er, or anything.. but what is it about you people that you cannot get her off your minds!! shes not even occupying a position of government, yet you find her so threatening.. i dont get it?

and the notes on her palm thing... who cares?? are you going to start criticizing the president for his reliance on a tele-prompter?? the guy just gave a speech to a bunch of elementary students and STILL couldnt give the damn thing up!

Y'know, I'd suggest to Palin that she use a teleprompter, because it might help her come across as actually being able to speak in complete sentences. But she has, and it didn't. Guess she better stick to the Wasila BlackBerry.

As for her position in government, why is it again that she quit? And how exactly does that qualify her to be President?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I've got Bush down for over $10 trillion added onto the national debt on his watch. Care to show us where Obama topped that figure in one year?

you know what's so rediculous about this argument? all deficit spending is bad! no one here is excusing Bushs spending... but what i do see are many people absurdly defending Obamas. when Bush left, federal spending was 40% of GDP. after Obamas 1st year, its now 54%! hes already spent 3 trillion dollars, why is that OK? we're projected to double the debt in 4 years!! so who cares whos doing, the point is it needs to stop. right now the democrats have voted to extend the debt sealing by an additional 1 trillions dollars!! its all insane.. so why are either of these guys defended?!?!?

bash Bushs spending, im all for it.. Medicare D, Homeland security, theres plenty of excessive spending to nail him on. but dont come around here defending Obamas spending, as if there is one iota of difference!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 2:09 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Not too well, I guess; she doesn't want anyone but the choir she preaches to hearing her, apparently. Nothing to do with the cheat-sheet thing on her palm, of course...

im not a 'Palin for president 2012'er, or anything.. but what is it about you people that you cannot get her off your minds!! shes not even occupying a position of government, yet you find her so threatening.. i dont get it?

and the notes on her palm thing... who cares?? are you going to start criticizing the president for his reliance on a tele-prompter?? the guy just gave a speech to a bunch of elementary students and STILL couldnt give the damn thing up!

People say Obama gives great speeches and I roll my eyes now. His patterns seem very stale to me, very forced, his usual inflections.
And then finally at the President's Question Time he spoke from the gut, unrehearsed, no prompter, and he was that guy again at least for a moment. I hope he takes that to heart. It reminded me of Carey's concession speech which was the first time I actually respected him.
But let's be honest in comparing the 2. Obama was not just talking to kids - those events get nationwide publicity. Every word he says in public is beamed across the country on every news channel. He has to be careful just as any president has to be.
Palin though... if she can't remember 3 little things, like the cornerstones she's basing her political ambitions on...

time to get off the stage.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Note that the only two times since the beginning of WWII that the debt has had a sustained UPWARD movement have both been under the stewardship of Republican presidents. Truman cut the debt down around 50% of GDP relative to its peak at over 120%, Ike cut it another 15% or so, Kennedy/LBJ roughly another 15%, Nixon a bit less, but still trending downward, Carter less still, but still down, and then Reagan shit the bed and spend like a madman, leaving Clinton to try to clean up his mess (which he did, in spades), and then Dubya came in to just wreck EVERYTHING. The guy had the Midas touch in reverse: every single thing he touched just seemed to turn to complete shit, and he handed Obama an economy that he'd just walked straight off a cliff.

hey KWICKO, show me the graph on entitlement spending. you know we're in the whole for 60+ TRILLION $$$$$ in entitlement obligations right? social security, medicare, medicaid, the entire wellfare aparatus... and who was it that started these programs!! oh thats right, it was Roosevelt, LBJ, and the democrats!! so get over this partisanship. Bush and the republicans spent a lot, who cares!? so are the democrats!! the solution isnt more spending, you do realize?? oh.. OBamas such a saint.. he voted for Tarp too! the democrats voted for every spending bill they were confronted with in the last few years; theyre just as responsible!! if you actually think Obama and the democrats are reigning in spending, you are off your freakin' rocker!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 2:10 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't think any of us are defending Obama's spending; we're talking PROPORTION, and the fact that a LOT of Obama's spending was forced on him/us by the state of the country when he took over.

I certainly hate it, but I'll wait until I see what Obama can do over a couple of years before I trash him for doing what he felt he had to do to get us out of the deepest rut we've ever been in. It'll take a long time to dig out of the immense hole Dumbya put us in, and I refuse to blame Obama for trying to claw his way out of it. Does that make sense?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

As for her position in government, why is it again that she quit? And how exactly does that qualify her to be President?

she was a governor, thats more executive experience then Obama had prior to his election. but personally, i wouldnt want either of them.

in my opinion, we dont need some ivy league intellectual elitist as president. the president doesnt need to do a damn thing but follow the constitution. when did we get this idea that the president was dictator in chief? thats the difference between a liberal and a libertarian.. they both have their opinions, but only liberals feel empowered to force their beliefs on society. Obama has an awefull lot of opinions on society, how he invisions it should be. too bad hes not content with applying them solely to his own life, and family.. hes got to force his beliefs on every one of us. atleast a libertarian has the good sense to know that PEOPLE ARE FREE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS!!! we're not tyrannical nannys who think theyre chosen to rule over the uneducated masses!! unbelieveable...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I certainly hate it, but I'll wait until I see what Obama can do over a couple of years before I trash him for doing what he felt he had to do to get us out of the deepest rut we've ever been in. It'll take a long time to dig out of the immense hole Dumbya put us in, and I refuse to blame Obama for trying to claw his way out of it. Does that make sense?

ill tell you what Niki2, you dont fix the problem by doubling down and spending more!! listen to his proposals, every solution theyve offered included more government spending, adding to the deficit. its not a matter of giving him time, for all of his rhetoric hes just continuing the Bush policy of deficit spending!

we all know we need to cut spending, cut government programs. So list one department Obamas willing to get rid of? thats why im saying both parties are indefensable, theyre both steering the ship in the same direction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 2:48 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Quote:

But I see you do endorse violence against women. Figures.

Quote:

Love the Republican strategy of advancing goons like Michael Steele and Sara Palin, and then screaming "racism!" or "sexism!" when anyone responds to the goonish things that they say. Is this political cover?

Suggests to me that 1) Republicans think that this is a very clever tactic, as often and artlessly as they use it and 2) Republicans understand these things as much as I understand women, which is to say, not at all.

Also, I endorse violence, in general.

I wonder were they got the idea for that strategy from?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 2:54 PM

I think what the spending go to counts alot...

Getting the Healthcare mess straightened out would be something I would applaud, only I think Obama would need to take an axe to the private insurance industry to get real change.

The US defense spending on the other hand is %65 of the entire planets defense spending... even after some programs like the F22 were cut, surely there is money to be saved there

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/spending-america-in
to-ruin.aspx

SPENDING AMERICA INTO RUIN
February 08, 2010
One of history’s most important lessons is that politicians should never be given a free hand to borrow money to cover the costs of wars, overseas adventures, or military spending.
More empires have been brought down by reckless spending than by invaders. The late Soviet Union, which wrecked its economy by buying too many tanks, is the most recent example. Now, the United States appears headed in the same direction.

Even so, President Barack Obama calls the US $3.8 trillion budget he just sent to Congress a major step in restoring America’s economic health.

In fact, it’s another potent fix given to a sick patient deeply addicted to the dangerous drug of debt.

Washington’s deficit (the difference between spending and income from taxes) will reach a vertiginous $1.6 trillion this
year. The huge sum will be borrowed, mostly from China and Japan, which the US already owes $1.5 trillion. The United States has put its fate in the hands of two nations who bear it little good will.

Debt service will cost Washington $250 billion, and may reach over a third of the total Federal budget within the next decade. Washington is still paying for past wars while considering starting a new one against Iran.

To understand the immensity of one trillion dollars, one would have had to start spending $1 million daily soon after Rome was founded and continue for 2,738 years until today.

Obama’s total proposed annual military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret `black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan (including bribes); 225,000 military `contractors’ (mercenaries and workers); and veteran’s costs. Add $75 billion (nearly 2.5 times France’s total defense budget) for 16 poorly functioning intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees who keep tripping over one another.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama’s Afghan `surge’ of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion - more than Germany’s total defense budget.

These figures do not account for wear and tear on US military equipment, costs of reconfiguring the US military to wage colonial wars in the Third World, or the cost of replacing worn-out equipment. Pentagon bookkeeping is about as flexible as Enron’s bookkeeping.

No wonder US defense stocks rose after Peace Laureate Obama’s `austerity’ budget.

Military and intelligence spending relentlessly increase as the official unemployment figure hovers near 10% and the economy bleeds red ink. Some estimates put real unemployment at over 20%.

America has become the Sick Man of the Western World, an economic cripple like the defunct Ottoman Empire whose inept financial management was legendary.

The Pentagon colossus now accounts for half of total world military spending. Add America’s rich NATO allies and Japan, and the figure reaches 75%.

China and Russia combined spend only a paltry 10% of US on defense.

There are 750 US military bases in 50 nations and 255,000 service members stationed abroad, 116,000 in Europe, nearly 100,000 in Japan and South Korea. President George W. Bush doubled military spending – much of which accrues to Republican states – to wage his faux war on terror.

Military spending gobbles up 19% of federal spending and at least 44% of tax revenues. America is on a permanent war footing. Many Americans believe the president’s primary role is as a war leader rather than chief executive of the republic.

Like Bush, President Barack Obama is paying for America’s wars through supplemental authorizations – ie putting them on the nation’s already maxed out credit card. Wage war now – pay later. Future generations will be stuck with the bill.

This presidential and congressional jiggery-pokery is the height of public dishonesty.

America’s wars ought to be paid for through taxes, not bookkeeping fraud. If US taxpayers had to actually pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars, these conflicts would end in short order.

America needs a fair, honest war tax. But hardly any politicians – save the courageous and honest Rep. Ron Paul – dare admit this hard truth.

The US has clearly reached the point of imperial overreach. Military spending and debt servicing are cannibalizing the US economy, the real basis of its world power. Besides the late USSR, the US also increasingly resembles the dying British Empire in 1945, crushed by immense debts incurred to wage WWII, unable to continue financing or defending the imperium, yet still imbued with imperial pretensions.

It is increasingly clear the president is either not in control of America’s runaway military juggernaut, or working with it.

Sixty years ago, the great President Dwight Eisenhower, whose portrait I keep by my desk, warned Americans to beware of the military-industrial complex. Six decades later, partisans of permanent war, fear-mongering, and world domination have joined Wall Street’s money lenders to put America into thrall.

Increasing numbers of Americans are rightly outraged and fearful of runaway deficits. But many do not understand their political leaders are also spending their nation into ruin through unnecessary foreign wars and a vainglorious attempt to control much of the globe -what neocons call `full spectrum dominance’ – using the canard of terrorism to justify an imperial policy that often closely resembles that of the old British Empire.

If Obama were really serious about restoring America’s economic health, he would demand military spending be slashed, quickly end the Iraq and Afghan wars, and break up the nation’s five giant Frankenbanks that now control 40% of all deposits.

But the president won’t, of course, and neither will Congress. They would rather see the nation go over the financial falls rather than change course.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 3:27 PM

Quote:

in my opinion, we dont need some ivy league intellectual elitist as president.

Call me crazy, but I'm COMFORTABLE with the concept that my President should be smarter than me. Everybody that liked Bush seemed to like that he was "just folks", and the idea that they could have a beer with him. I've got neighbors who are nice guys, and I don't mind having a beer with them, but when it comes to actual issues, they're idiots, and I don't want people like that anywhere near the nuclear launch codes.

By the way, since you seem so hell-bent on labeling who disagrees with you a "liberal" or a "statist", please lay out for us in explicit detail EXACTLY how you'd cut all government spending to zero, since that seems to be your comfort margin with government spending?

Do away with ALL entitlement spending? Okay, but don't come whining and bitching to me about your stupid "death panels" when Granny croaks it because she can't afford her medicine. Or her house payment. Veterans Affairs? Okay, we can cut all benefits for all veterans, now and forever more. Deal? Can we cut all defense spending and intelligence? Can we do away with border security and the border patrol? How about the immigration service? Can we get rid of them?

Who will you cut? And how will you deal with the unemployment deluge when you throw all of them out of work?

And don't hand me that tired old crap about how you want it all left to the states to decide. Talk about a "statist"! Why is the state better at deciding what to do with my money than the federal government, anyway?

By the way, of that alleged $60 trillion in entitlement spending, how much of that is Obama's? Be exact, please. How much of it did he inherit, and how much was on the books already?

And how would YOU cut it to zero? You want Obama to do away with it completely; please explain to us all HOW we're going to do that.

I'll wait. I'm sure this will be at least as enlightening as your diatribes on evolution.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 3:33 PM

TRAVELER

Hello Niki2:

This is a turn of events. Palin took every opportunity to get herself in front of the camera. Isn't she suppose to be doing her own segment on FOX? Now it's no cameras or recorders. I found that article you quoted from. To bad you didn't include the photograph that went with it. It was a clear shot of her hand with the notes written on her hand it while she was badgering Obama about teleprompters. Actually if you watch that speech she continually looks down at her at the podium to read notes on paper. I got the impression the notes on her hand were for an interview she had that same day and not the speech.

Now I am not saying having notes is a bad thing. A long speech is hard to memorize. I took a speech course and eight out of ten speeches we were allowed to have notes. The others I paced the floor for hours until I got them memorized. So like Whoopie said on the View about having a teleprompter,"Thank God it's there."
Palin should not be critical of someone using a teleprompter if she requires notes for a prearranged interview.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:
Hello Niki2:

This is a turn of events. Palin took every opportunity to get herself in front of the camera. Isn't she suppose to be doing her own segment on FOX? Now it's no cameras or recorders. I found that article you quoted from. To bad you didn't include the photograph that went with it. It was a clear shot of her hand with the notes written on her hand it while she was badgering Obama about teleprompters. Actually if you watch that speech she continually looks down at her at the podium to read notes on paper. I got the impression the notes on her hand were for an interview she had that same day and not the speech.

Now I am not saying having notes is a bad thing. A long speech is hard to memorize. I took a speech course and eight out of ten speeches we were allowed to have notes. The others I paced the floor for hours until I got them memorized. So like Whoopie said on the View about having a teleprompter,"Thank God it's there."
Palin should not be critical of someone using a teleprompter if she requires notes for a prearranged interview.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

I agree, without her crack at Obama for using a teleprompter this would never have become any kind of issue...

I would rather have someone concerned enough with getting the facts out straight to use notes / teleprompter / etc, than someone who was not.

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 8:07 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:

But I see you do endorse violence against women. Figures.

How the hell is Michael Steele a "goon' ? Seriously? A goon" This from the crowd who supports the SEIU thugs, who were sent to rough up citizens at their own town hall meetings. I'm trying to think of a way you folks could be more disconnected from reality ....nope, not happenin'.

Violence does have its place, to be sure.

It defeated Hitler. Mussolini. Freed the slaves.... but running over a mother of 5 with a car ? Yeah, that's pretty f'd up. Don't care who ya are.

Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:20 AM

Why is it that you assume putting a sticker on the front of your car endorses violence or running someone over? Why does your mind automatically go there?

Are you saying that everyone who puts a sticker on the back of their car is endorsing backing over people?

Truth is, you're ascribing motives to me which I never stated. I said I wanted to put a bumper sticker on the front of my car; I never said why. You ASSumed you knew the reason, but I never made such a statement of why or what it meant.

Like I said, curious that YOUR mind goes first to violence, always - especially where women are concerned. It tells me much about you, most of which you don't want known.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Interesting survey in the latest Esquire. They surveyed 75 of the top Republican party leaders. Only 12% said they'd like to see Palin on top of the 2012 ticket. Mitt Romney was highest with 30%, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlwenty got 13%.
http://www.esquire.com/features/republican-party-survey-0310

I wonder if Palin is acting as a stalking horse for the Repubs. Drawing all the attention and ire, so that when the more moderate candidates come on line, they appear more centerist and reasonable.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:51 AM

America loves a winner!

You said you wanted to put the sticker ' Run, Sarah Run'. on your cars FRONT bumper.

You're busted.

Own it

Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 4:16 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think what the spending go to counts alot...

Obama’s total proposed annual military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret `black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan (including bribes); 225,000 military `contractors’ (mercenaries and workers); and veteran’s costs. Add $75 billion (nearly 2.5 times France’s total defense budget) for 16 poorly functioning intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees who keep tripping over one another.

Gino - first thanks for mentioning Margolis on this board. He is someone I have started to read since you did so (American Raj http://www.ericmargolis.com/ ) and I enjoy having his opinions in the mix.

But... he seems to have dropped a bomb in that article you quoted about "... secret `black programs (about $70 billion)..." Where the H is that coming from?? Using that without any more details seems very inflammatory - you read anything else about the details behind that statement?

Elsewhere. I agree with anyone from any party that is criticizing the enormous deficit. More debt is not the answer, it's dangerous wishful thinking, especially when you have so much division in the country. If Obama had greater consensus with the public it *might* work, but not now.

Get US the F out of Iraq and Afghanistan now.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You said you wanted to put the sticker ' Run, Sarah Run'. on your cars FRONT bumper.

You're buested.

Own it

I'm "buested"? Now you've moved from making up "facts" to making up WORDS?

I said it, but I didn't say WHY I wanted to do it. I implied no motive, ulterior or otherwise, but you inferred one from what I said (and what I *didn't* say).

Is there a law that says I *can't* put a sticker on my front bumper? They're called BUMPER stickers, not REAR-BUMPER-ONLY stickers. Right?

Or do you not believe in freedom of expression, freedom to be different, freedom to go against convention?

Why do you demand blind obedience and conformity? Are you a statist?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 5:37 AM

America loves a winner!

I believe in the freedom of speech, except when it comes to promoting violence against women.

Which seems you're ok with though.

As long as it's a conservative woman.

Director: Bureau of Bigfoot Affairs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anti: “she was a governor” half-term, then she quit. And as governor her record isn’t exactly stellar, nor was it for any of the other offices she held. It’s all come out since then and there are myriad things to point to.

Quote:
ivy league intellectual elitist....

...tyrannical nannys who think theyre chosen to rule over the uneducated masses

Here we go. This is the latest right-wing tactic, often used effectively In the past, but it’s a tactic, nothing more, and as such not worth responding to.

Quote:
the president doesnt need to do a damn thing but follow the constitution

Are you freaking KIDDING me?

I won’t even GO there; the President has to be able to THINK, not be puppeted by his advisors (like Cheney) or wife ( a la Nancy), he has to have some working knowledge of government (which a fancy speaking style won’t give ‘ya), and the ability to make important decisions, meet with heads of state...the list is endless. To think that any uneducated, ignorant person could do the job is a fantasy, at best!

As to his spending, I don’t like it any more than anyone else; the difference is, I see some of the things that forced him to do so, and refuse to compare or contrast or condemn him until we see if what he does is effective in getting the country back on its feet, THEN what he does to cut the deficit. I won’t condemn him on trying to deal with the mess he was left.

And Gino is absolutely on target: the biggest waste, the biggest deficit we have and always have had (as far as I know) is military spending. It’s such a treasured thing by both parties that it’s not even thinkable to attack it much, especially with two wars going on, so Obama doesn’t dare even THINK about cutting it. I’d love to know how he feels about it and what he’d actually do on that issue if it weren’t for the current state of affairs. I have a hunch. Bush “hid” his military spending by not putting it in the budget; at least Obama talked about it , tho’ he’s gone right on doing the same. I think the article Gino posted is right on point that “America needs a fair, honest war tax. But hardly any politicians – save the courageous and honest Rep. Ron Paul – dare admit this hard truth.” Obama’s not stupid, he knows it’s something he daren’t even bring up.

Show me any Prez who's had the guts to go up against America's love of military spending SINCE Eisenhower (who I met when he visited Afghanistan, one thing I'll never forget!).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Traveler, “everything you said”. I didn’t include the photo of her hand because I think everyone in America has been subjected to it, it’s been ridiculed by most comedians, and is just too damned pathetic. But yes, I’m sure the notes were for the (Chris Wallace?) interview, which is doubly absurd as that was about as soft an interview as humanly possible, and the things written were pretty much her PLATFORM—if she can’t remember THAT without a crib sheet...! I’m guessing the “no media” is a result of how bad she’s looked so many times and how quickly the media has picked up on every idiotic mistake. There have been so many, just since the election; if it were today, I’d like to think NOBODY could have foisted her off on McCain!

Notes are necessary when giving speeches, you’re absolutely right. Anyone who can give a long speech without them is a miracle worker. Her crack at the teleprompter was just another method of trying to make Obama look weak, “elitist”—which is a current tactic I see everywhere—and herself look like a “good old gal” who speaks from the heart. It’s absurd; she’s USED teleprompters...pot calling kettle black? Then THIS is totally asinine; I can’t help wondering if they did it deliberately, it’s SO obvious.

But I think it would have been news either way, Gino. The media has too much fun focusing on her, waiting for the gaffs they know will come. Her cracks on teleprompters makes her even more fair game, but what she did is so amateurish and absurd for a supposed serious politician, it would have been noticed. I STILL have a hard time buying it wasn’t some sort of ploy, it was so obviously stupid and couldn’t fail to be noticed, but I can’t figure out what she hoped to gain by it.

I’m going to try and ignore Crappy as much as possible in future and try not to buy into his ridiculous taunts, so I won’t respond to him, except to say that taking an offhand joke remark and turning it into an accusation of loving violence is so absurd as to not be worth noting. Why do you bother, Mike, when the tactic to ignore reality and use whatever’s at hand to provoke is so obvious? Strange...

Geezer, maybe you gave me an answer as to the palm notes, and so many other things. If Palin is being used (willingly, Sarahcuda wouldn’t let herself be used unless it benefited her!) to make the more moderates look better, that would explain it. It continues to be a mystery to me, others, I have to admit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I believe in the freedom of speech, except when it comes to promoting violence against women.

You mean "except when it comes to promoting violence against CONSERVATIVE women". You had no problem at all with the idea of shooting pregnant Palestinian women in the stomach, and you vehemently defended THAT promotion of violence.

Also, you've repeatedly promoted violence against people based on nothing more than the fact that they're Muslim ("Strap his allah-loving ass into a glider...")

So don't cry me the crocodile tears and wrap yourself up in your faux indignation, when you care nothing about women at all, unless they're WHITE, AMERICAN, CONSERVATIVE women.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think what the spending go to counts alot...

Obama’s total proposed annual military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret `black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan (including bribes); 225,000 military `contractors’ (mercenaries and workers); and veteran’s costs. Add $75 billion (nearly 2.5 times France’s total defense budget) for 16 poorly functioning intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees who keep tripping over one another.

Gino - first thanks for mentioning Margolis on this board. He is someone I have started to read since you did so (American Raj http://www.ericmargolis.com/ ) and I enjoy having his opinions in the mix.

But... he seems to have dropped a bomb in that article you quoted about "... secret `black programs (about $70 billion)..." Where the H is that coming from?? Using that without any more details seems very inflammatory - you read anything else about the details behind that statement?

Elsewhere. I agree with anyone from any party that is criticizing the enormous deficit. More debt is not the answer, it's dangerous wishful thinking, especially when you have so much division in the country. If Obama had greater consensus with the public it *might* work, but not now.

Get US the F out of Iraq and Afghanistan now.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day http://www.scifiradio.com]

As the funding requests for black programs are not presented publicly, it is really hard to say...

Some insiders leaked last years was upward of 56 billion

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1379341

but this year, many things that were cut from the regular budget could be rolled into the black budget due to political considerations.

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 10:06 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Kinda makes mock of this being a democracy, being forced to pay for shit when you ain't even allowed to know what it is, yes ?

Especially when most of it is either patently ridiculous, unconstitutional, unlawful, or aimed at american citizens in a very non-american (in spirit) kind of way.

The idea of being forced at gunpoint (which is what taxes are) to pay for your own abuse and violation of privacy by the alphabet goons should offend every one of you, and expose once more that the real terrorism threat comes from our so-called protectors.

-F

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Kinda makes mock of this being a democracy, being forced to pay for shit when you ain't even allowed to know what it is, yes ?

Especially when most of it is either patently ridiculous, unconstitutional, unlawful, or aimed at american citizens in a very non-american (in spirit) kind of way.

The idea of being forced at gunpoint (which is what taxes are) to pay for your own abuse and violation of privacy by the alphabet goons should offend every one of you, and expose once more that the real terrorism threat comes from our so-called protectors.

-F

Speaking as a non American

every time the US goes on about how you treat an American citizen this way, and someone who is not the rule don't apply it pisses me off.

How about Human rights instead of American rights, and everyone else ?

The way it is now makes me want to have " special rules " for Americans where I live, and I'm sure that wouldn't go over...

Special Lines going through customs involving full rectal exams, etc

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Kinda makes mock of this being a democracy, being forced to pay for shit when you ain't even allowed to know what it is, yes ?

Especially when most of it is either patently ridiculous, unconstitutional, unlawful, or aimed at american citizens in a very non-american (in spirit) kind of way.

The idea of being forced at gunpoint (which is what taxes are) to pay for your own abuse and violation of privacy by the alphabet goons should offend every one of you, and expose once more that the real terrorism threat comes from our so-called protectors.

-F

Speaking as a non American

every time the US goes on about how you treat an American citizen this way, and someone who is not the rule don't apply it pisses me off.

How about Human rights instead of American rights, and everyone else ?

The way it is now makes me want to have " special rules " for Americans where I live, and I'm sure that wouldn't go over...

Special Lines going through customs involving full rectal exams, etc

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

Speaking as an American, I'm right there with ya, Gino. We INSIST that people everywhere have "HUMAN RIGHTS" - until we find those rights to be inconvenient, that is. And then they DON'T have them, if we don't feel like honoring those rights.

And then we blast any other nation who doesn't recognize the rights that we SAY we recognize.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 12:01 PM

TRAVELER

Quote: "soft media".

That is another point about Palin.
She gets away with remarks, "All of them", without being pinned down. Even Barbara Walters didn't press her about allowing Israel to take more Palestinian land. Sarah said Israel's population is growing and they need more land. Yea. So that gives any nation a right to take someone elses land to ease their population growth. I would like to see Palin face tougher journalists and without crib notes. She should at least know her own polices. That is why I feel she bailed on Alaska. Running for vice president she faced serious journalists and failed. Now free from public office she has escaped that obligation. Now it's buddy up with Glenn Beck from FOX. How impartial can you be to interview a person working for your own network.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well shit, Gino, you know by now that's one of my themes.

Human Rights for ALL Humans, otherwise what's the fuckin point ?

It's not lost on me that most of the time someone uses that phrase they're talkin about for this or that select group and be-damned to the rest of em.

That said, the idea of my Government not only shoving debt from morons of previous generations onto me before I was even old enough to vote, compounded by robbing me of even more money to finance stuff that's directed offensively at me, be it at the hands of a State-Sponsored Religion (which is, cut the bullshit, what those faith-based initiatives are about, bankrolling the "religious" donation-supporters, theocratic pork) or at the hands of State-Sponsored jackboots who abuse us in the name of "protecting" us, and fail even in THAT, cause yanno, for all that money and abuses, they never do actually catch these assholes, and more than half the time seem to be the primary motivating factor behind them... and just WHERE did Khalid Sheik Mohammeds goon get that bomb, hmmm ?

Well, it offends me to the point where words just won't carry it, and about all I can DO about it is snarl and wait for them to blink.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:39 PM

Quote:
I would like to see Palin face tougher journalists and without crib notes.

Actually, Traveler, I'd like to see ALL politicians called on their bullshit more often. Newt blurting out that "Richard Reid was an American citizen" and Jon Stewart NOT doing a spit-take and shouting, "WTF?!"; Rudy claiming that there were "NO terrorist attacks under Bush" - and Stephanopolous NOT yelling "Bullshit!" right then and there. Okay, they're supposed to be civil, but they DON'T have to just sit there and let people spew idiotic lies at them. Sure, they came back later and pointed out the mistakes, but it would have been better - AND made for better TV, which is what they're supposed to be after, isn't it? - if they'd just called 'em out on their ridiculous statements.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Hey Mikey ?

Having seen that clip of The View and been tremendously amused at the gall it took to even let her moderate a political discussion, I'd pay good money to see someone give Whoopi Goldberg a mic and let her go interview some politicians.

Shit man, I'd pay-per-view, for THAT!
*digs around a bit*

Oh HELL yes, give that woman a mic, a press pass, and tie the editor to a chair!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 2:54 PM

Yeah, it's a good idea, but it'd probably work out about as well as Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" did. Everybody loves that he tells it like it is, until he tells us an uncomfortable truth; then he's gone.

But yeah, give Whoops the mic and the credentials, and turn her ass loose on all of 'em.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:33 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

State-Sponsored Religion (which is, cut the bullshit, what those faith-based initiatives are about, bankrolling the "religious" donation-supporters, theocratic pork)

What are the differences between the laws of churches and charities?

(I'm thinkin' advantage: church)

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:38 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.

So can someone explain to me the implications of Kwicko putting a "Run, Sarah, Run!" bumper sticker on the front of his car meaning he's an advocate of violence against women? I mean I honestly just assumed that he'd put it there because there's no space on the back bumper because it's full. So where's the harm?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 4:04 PM

TRAVELER

Yes to both Kwicko and Fremdfirma. As the years have past I have been turned off by network news because they create their own agendas. I have turned to PBS and watch Charlie Rose and John Mclaughlin to get insite on U.S. and world affairs. I doubt they would have Palin on their shows because they would get headaches listening to her.
Too return to Palin, I found the commentary on the View very informative. In my last post I took a quote of Whoopi's from the View. She stands very high in my book after hearing her. Barbara Walters also commented, on the View, on some of Palin's answers to their interview, but why not press Palin during the interview. The time to pin these people is when they are sitting in front of you.
And Kwicko, you are right in correcting me. A lot of politicians get away with absurd comments. Palin is not alone in getting a free pass.
So to return to my first statement, you see why I don't watch network news. If it is not personal agendas, it is soft interviews.
I long for Edward R. Murrow.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 4:19 PM

Traveler: Not correcting, just adding to your list. You needed no correction on your statement. :)

And how sad is it that pretty much the closest person in the news biz these days to Murrow is Jon Stewart? I mean, he's funny and all, but he's one of the few who USUALLY nail these fuckers down on stuff, and I was quite disappointed that the Newt's slimy utterance slipped past him.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 5:00 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

When it comes to the clip you saw, Mike, I don't think Stewart KNEW he wasn't an American citizen until later, I didn't get the impression he just let it go by. That's not his way at ALL.

When it comes to the rest, however, I agree 100%. Many is the time I've sat there and watched some idjit say something blatantly wrong or deliberately false, and the interviewer rolls right over it...and I usually change the channel about then.

Oh, gawd, would I love to see The Whoops turned loose on these suckers...imagine Palin...

But it'll never happen. They wouldn't agree; they're not THAT stupid! And probably a large part of the reason these guys don't nail 'em is that they'll never come back to the show if they do. The Show Must Go On, you know. I'll bet that explains many of those instances.

"Yes" about Jon Stewart, and O'Reilly actually SAID as much during their interview. Comedy lets people get away with a LOT that a straight face wouldn't, and I admire Stewart greatly. Colbert, not so much, but only because his show is more silly than sharp (tho' he gets big points for the good he does!). Still blows my mind tho' that many Republicans think Colbert is actually SERIOUS and a right-winger!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Traveler: Not correcting, just adding to your list. You needed no correction on your statement. :)

And how sad is it that pretty much the closest person in the news biz these days to Murrow is Jon Stewart? I mean, he's funny and all, but he's one of the few who USUALLY nail these fuckers down on stuff, and I was quite disappointed that the Newt's slimy utterance slipped past him.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

I would suggest Stewart has his bias and agendas as well...

Look at how he belittles Iran, and most Arab governments...

and also seems to avoid Israel are their policys on his show...

Old school journalism doesn't exist anymore

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 13, 2010 5:21 PM