Fox news recruits a 12 yo to be fair and balanced

tonyboothOriginal Poster

May 17, 2011

Classic propaganda, I bet Bruce records it for his kids
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4697281
OK I found the link for what I was watching when I wrote this

ReactReplySubscribe

Replies

DE
DesertRat
May 17, 2011
[quote]Classic propaganda, I bet Bruce records it for his kids lol.[/quote] Tonybooth; You lost me here. What are you trying to say? While you're at it, could you go back to your original post and correct the spelling? You really don't need a spell checker to figure out how to spell Fox.
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 18, 2011
[quote]Maybe Foz is the Aussie division of Fox (Fox Oz).;-)[/quote] You guessed it, well view the unedited video, O'Reilly admits he was wrong on Iraq, Bush's waste etc, interesting. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4003531/entire-jon-stewart-interview/?playlist_id=86923 Actually we have Sky news which they don't use here although they broadcast it, Bruce look at mins 16 - 21 and you will see you are wrong, inaccuarate. Stewart draws laughs from the guys on the floor and even BoR likes him, he is going soft lol. He also destroys the socialist nonsense, you guys need a new political lexicon its so inaccurate, but BoR's last part is perhaps the most interesting, I suspect you should partion the country and move all the right wingers to the centre and keep the coast for the liberals, it could be like India and Pakistan Have fun...................btw NudeinMa has it warmed up ther yet we had 20c here today was lovely?
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 18, 2011
http://www.desmogblog.com/dan-gainor
http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/?funderID=3
Financed by big Oil and climate change deniers.
The Sarah Scaife Foundation is financed by the Mellon industrial, oil,
and banking fortune. At one time, its largest single holding was stock
in the Gulf Oil Corporation. The foundation became active in funding
conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman.
Forbes magazine has estimated Scaife's personal net worth at $800
million, making him the 138th richest person in the U.S. He controls the
Scaife, Carthage, and Allegheny foundations. In 1993, Scaife and
Carthage reportedly gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative
think tanks. As of December 31, 1992, Scaife assets were $212,232,888
and Carthage assets were $11,937,862.
just buy another opinion, fine Bruce with Murdoch he simply owns the whole thing, no wonder his poor old mother is constantly embarassed.
ReactReply
BU
Bud
May 19, 2011
Bullshit... get off the kool-aid
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 25, 2011
[quote][/quote] Well the President looks more presidential everyday and what does Fox do, no commentary no mention of the speech given to a joint sitting of parliament, instead a couple of minutes to mock a toast given to bettty windsor when they started playing the national anthem, how pathetic, Bruce you have no defence for this disgrace and incompetence. Totally inept and that insane Hannity "interviewing" the guy who wrote a book against Palin, he uses all the tricks you accuse Liberals of. Again biased unbalanced and in his case unhinged even BoR finds him ridiculous and replusive.
ReactReply
RO
Roosterock
May 26, 2011
[quote][quote]Classic propaganda, I bet Bruce records it for his kids lol.[/quote] Tonybooth; You lost me here. What are you trying to say? While you're at it, could you go back to your original post and correct the spelling? You really don't need a spell checker to figure out how to spell Fox.[/quote] Desert Rat, On my computer at the heading it says FOX. Perhaps he started another posting and I missed it.
ReactReply
RO
Roosterock
May 26, 2011
[quote][quote][/quote] Well the President looks more presidential everyday and what does Fox do, no commentary no mention of the speech given to a joint sitting of parliament, instead a couple of minutes to mock a toast given to bettty windsor when they started playing the national anthem, how pathetic, Bruce you have no defence for this disgrace and incompetence. Totally inept and that insane Hannity "interviewing" the guy who wrote a book against Palin, he uses all the tricks you accuse Liberals of. Again biased unbalanced and in his case unhinged even BoR finds him ridiculous and replusive.[/quote] Obama is way out of his class. His friends are thugs, preachers who preach hate, Black Panthers who yell kill white people. The Queen is in a different crowd of people than he is. What person keeps records of another person for years unless it is to make money off that person later. Hannity asked him if he was going to make money off of the book and the guy did not want to answer, but said yes. Hannity feels he should give the money to charity since he did not write the book for money. The author of the book is a scumbag who wants to make a lot of money at someone else expense.
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 26, 2011
[quote][quote][quote][/quote] Well the President looks more presidential everyday and what does Fox do, no commentary no mention of the speech given to a joint sitting of parliament, instead a couple of minutes to mock a toast given to bettty windsor when they started playing the national anthem, how pathetic, Bruce you have no defence for this disgrace and incompetence. Totally inept and that insane Hannity "interviewing" the guy who wrote a book against Palin, he uses all the tricks you accuse Liberals of. Again biased unbalanced and in his case unhinged even BoR finds him ridiculous and replusive.[/quote] Obama is way out of his class. His friends are thugs, preachers who preach hate, Black Panthers who yell kill white people. The Queen is in a different crowd of people than he is. What person keeps records of another person for years unless it is to make money off that person later. Hannity asked him if he was going to make money off of the book and the guy did not want to answer, but said yes. Hannity feels he should give the money to charity since he did not write the book for money. The author of the book is a scumbag who wants to make a lot of money at someone else expense.[/quote] Hannity is the scumbag and beneath contempt as he just hectored the guy gave him no chance to answer and of course he will never ask Sarah Palin proper journalistic questions because he is incapable of doing so. So you have no interest in knowing what an insider can reveal of this charade of a woman? Typical and people outside the US wonder why your country is so bitterly divided. Bill O'reilly makes it clear that they are in it to make money and that is far enough, just be honest and admit that is the ethos for the whole rotten movement, just because you are naive doesn't mean that you can't keep your faith but open your mind to the possibility she is no saint and deserves greater scrutiny.
ReactReply
BE
BeachLisa
May 26, 2011
Hello Bruce. You sound very intelligent and articulate and I like your passion (I am not saying I agree - or disagree - I am just saying you sound very authoriative on the things of which you speak). So having said that, could you please look at removing LOL from your reportage? Any time I hear that I expect the next words to be "so, I totally, like, went to the mall and got this real awesome, like, up-do". It doesn't help your hard worked for credibility. - I hope I didn't spell anything wrong
ReactReply
BE
BeachLisa
May 26, 2011
Sorry I couldn't resist this:- Why did he have to be so obvious as to rent the house next door? Why didn't he just rent a place in Russia? Because you know "You can see ........... "
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 27, 2011
[quote]It's funny that those on the left are so enraged about Fox News because they offer a much more balanced approach to reporting than does the main stream media. The typical rant is that Murdoch is a demon, and so on. Yes the prince of darkness, in many Australian cities there is only one major newspaper, a Murdoch paper. Yet, if you watch it-even on the right leaning opinion shows -(they do not hide their tendencies on that station)-(hide under a bushell?? no way shrinking violets like BoR and Hannity???) there is always an opportunity given for those on the left. Often "the last word". [/quote] The last word is often interrupted ridiculed or just a shouting match, if they were sincere they would apply the principles you outlined. [quote]Trouble is that many refuse to appear because they would be given tough questions instead of softballs. Yes people are invited on and then called "baby killers" or profitting from writing a book exposing their former boss as a fraud? Come on Bruce these guys use all the ruses you accuse Liberals of. Both sides throw bombs, the sad thing is Fox pretends to be balanced where everyone knows its just a stirring by line to take the mickey. [/quote] [quote]OK some insight on the true nature of the 30 year slide into deficit - simple equation really cut revenue and create a deficit. [/quote] The big debt lie ByGene LyonsAP Ronald Reagan There's nothing remotely conservative about believing in magic. Yet when it comes to fiscal questions, Republicans are as superstitious as gamblers around a roulette wheel. Regardless of how much they've lost, they're confident their system will prevail if they double down one more time. How you can tell they're about to do something momentously dumb is when they're unanimous, i.e., operating on sheer ideology. Show me a unified GOP, and I'll show you a budgetary disaster about to happen. That's what makes the pending showdown over raising the national debt limit so worrying. But hold that thought. The betting system the GOP's been playing for the past 30 years is called supply-side economics. "The theory goes like this," explains David Cay Johnston. "Lower tax rates will encourage more investment, which in turn will mean more jobs and greater prosperity -- so much so that tax revenues will go up, despite lower rates." To anybody with a passing interest in the material world, it's clear that this has never happened. Over the same period, the national debt has risen to more than $14 trillion -- almost 90 percent of it under Republican presidents. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have failed to prosper as President Reagan's seductive "morning in America" rhetoric promised. Since 1980, Johnston shows, "the average income of the vast majority -- the bottom 90 percent of Americans -- has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent." Meanwhile, the income of the upper 1 percent of taxpayers more than doubled, and that of the top tenth of 1 percent increased more than 400 percent. Social mobility in the United States lags behind many European countries. The richest 300,000 American taxpayers currently enjoy incomes roughly equal to that of the bottom 150 million combined. Anyway, here's what I mean about the dangers of GOP herd behavior: Given current conservative hysteria about "runaway spending," it's worth remembering that the United States last balanced the federal budget in FY2001 under Bill Clinton. That was largely a result of the Clinton income-tax increases of 1993, enacted without a single GOP vote amid universal Republican predictions of doom. They probably cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994. But contrary to Newt Gingrich and the rest, what followed was the most prolonged economic boom since World War II -- 22 million new jobs altogether, the only period since 1980 when middle-class prosperity grew substantially. Enter George W. Bush and the now-infamous tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Actually professing to worry that eliminating the national debt too quickly would throw markets into turmoil, Republicans again promised lower taxes, higher revenue and boom times. Again, they were virtually unanimous, voting to cut marginal income tax rates mainly on the wealthy by 224-1 in the House and 48-3 in the Senate. Two wars and a large entitlement increase (Medicare, Part D) later, no boom took place. At its peak in 2007, the Bush economy had produced roughly 8 million jobs (7 million of which vanished in the 2007-09 financial crisis). Budget deficits soared, topping out with the $1.3 trillion FY2009 shortfall President Obama inherited that January. Somewhat to their credit, when pressed none of Bush's top-level Treasury people endorsed the supply-side delusion. Aggravated by GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's recent invocations of the old-time religion, recovering Republican economist Bruce Bartlett compiled quotes from Bush administration officials debunking the idea. "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves?" Edward Lazear, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors told a Senate committee in 2006. "As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim." Lazear's predecessor, Harvard's Greg Mankiw, has written scholarly articles arguing that the economic boost from tax cuts amounts to roughly 30 percent of government revenue forgone. In direct consequence, the national debt almost doubled under George W. Bush, from roughly $5 trillion in 2001 to more than $10 trillion in 2009. Also in consequence, every Republican leader now posing as a hard-line fiscal conservative -- Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Paul Ryan, and Sen. McConnell -- voted to increase the national debt limit at least seven times under President Bush. All of them, every time. Ironically, of the present players, only Barack Obama made what he now calls a protest vote against raising the debt limit in 2006. Under a Democratic president, GOP supply-siders are mad keen to give the wheel another spin. Republican House members voted 235-4 for Rep. Ryan's preposterous fantasy of balancing the budget by cutting millionaires' taxes by $1 trillion and downgrading Medicare to a cheaper voucher system. So now the same posers vow to risk the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. Treasury during a fragile economic recovery unless President Obama agrees to deep cuts in the nation's social safety net. A mature electorate would have wised up by now. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette columnist Gene Lyons is a National Magazine Award winner and co-author of "The Hunting of the President" (St. Martin's Press, 2000). You can e-mail Lyons at eugenelyons2@yahoo.com. More:Gene LyonsHow Republicans became the party of deficits BySteve KornackiJack Kemp and George Bush If the debate in today's Republican Party over how to address the deficit feels a bit one-note, it's because it is. When it comes to members of Congress, John Boehner'soft-repeated linethat "We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem" is the rule among Republicans (witha few notable exceptions). And when it comes to the party's presidential candidates, it's a universally held conviction. There is very little disagreement: Deficits are one of the chief threats to America -- but they can never be tackled by raising taxes; in fact, taxes must be lowered. The prevalence of this contradictory posture in the GOP is a relatively recent phenomenon. And while the story of how it has taken hold is long and involved, it can be argued that there are really two critical turning points in the modern era. The first came in 1980, when Republicans staged a presidential primary campaign that -- by today's standards -- was remarkable for its ideological diversity. It boiled down to a two-way race between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The fault lines were clear and well-defined. Reagan represented the rising Goldwater wing of the GOP -- fiercely anti-tax and anti-government, staunchly anti-Communist, and far to the right on cultural issues. In this wing of the GOP, a new economic theory offered by Arthur Laffer was taking hold: that slashing income tax rates would actually lead to higher government revenues, with lower taxes spurring economic growth and increasing Americans' taxable income. In Congress, Sen. William Roth of Delaware and Rep. Jack Kemp of New York proposed radical tax relief legislation in the late '70s, and Reagan embraced the effort in his campaign. On the other side of the GOP ideological spectrum was Bush, representative of the "town father" wing of the GOP -- pragmatists who saw a meaningful role for government in Americans' daily lives but who were wary of bureaucracy and who saw evil in red ink. Bush separated himself from Reagan on numerous issues (for instance, Bush expressed support for the Equal Rights Amendment and for abortion rights -- both of which Reagan and the New Right fiercely opposed). But the biggest difference between them was on basic economic philosophy. To Bush and his ilk, Laffer's theories were utter nonsense and a recipe for fiscal disaster. "This program of a tax cut may be good politics in the short run because we are so overtaxed," Bush said of Reagan's plan. "But it would be a disaster in human and economic terms." In another speech, Bush declared: "It is impossible for Gov. Reagan to balance the budget -- an essential component of bringing down inflation -- if he is to reduce taxes by more than $220 billion over the next three years." And in a line that haunted him for years to come, Bush told a crowd in Pittsburgh in April 1980, that Reagan was proposing "a voodoo economic policy" that couldn't work. From today's vantage point, it's somewhat amazing to consider how well Bush did in the '80 primaries. He'd entered the race with virtually no name recognition (a former CIA director, U.N. ambassador, Republican National Committee chairman, and two-term congressman), little money and no organization. Reagan, meanwhile, had come agonizingly close to stealing the 1976 nomination from Gerald Ford -- and entered the '80 contest as the clear favorite. And yet, Bush managed to stun Reagan in the Iowa caucuses and -- very briefly -- appeared poised to repeat the feat in New Hampshire (where Reagan was saved in part bysome memorable theatrics). Even after that, Bush still went on to post another upset in Pennsylvania before fading for good. His performance was so strong, in fact, that Reagan -- who had wanted to put a fellow true believer (perhaps Kemp) on the ticket -- was compelled to offer him the No. 2 slot. But while Bush's showing was impressive, what really mattered was that Reagan and his fellow Laffer adherents had won. Within seven months of taking office, Reagan pushed through Congress and signed into law a massive reduction of tax rates. Supply-side economics was no longer just a theory; it was now the official doctrine of the Republican Party -- and the official policy of the United States. In the nearly 200 years before Reagan took office, the country had racked up a total of about $1 trillion in debt. By the end of his two terms, that number had nearly tripled. It was during the Reagan years that conservatives learned to rationalize massive deficits. Of course, the old Laffer-resistant wing of the GOP didn't disappear all at once. Party loyalty (and the scope of Reagan's '80 landslide) persuaded most of them to go along with the new president's economic program in 1981, but much of the old skepticism -- and distaste for deficits -- remained. This was true even when it came to Bush. As vice president, he was unfailingly loyal to Reagan, publicly backing all of his policies, no matter how strenuously he'd opposed them as a candidate. It was for a purpose: If he wanted to win the top job for himself in 1988, Bush realized, he would need at least some of the Reaganites to be with him. But even then, there were still glimpses of the old "town father." For instance, in the '88 GOP race, Bush was opposed by (among others) Kemp, who touted himself as Reagan's true ideological heir -- and who declared that the Reagan Revolution would be "over, gone, dead" if Bush ever claimed the Oval Office for himself. Bush, for his part, ran on a pledge not to raise taxes, and fended off another rival -- an old Laffer skeptic named Bob Dole -- with charges that he was too soft on taxes. But Bush also resisted Kemp's calls for further dramatic tax cuts, on the grounds that they'd make the country's ballooning deficits even worse. Here, for instance, was their exchange during one of the final '88 GOP debates: Bush ended up winning the nomination with relative ease (after an early scare in Iowa) -- and further won over the Reagan crowd with his acceptance speech at the GOP convention, in which he promised to fight any effort from Democrats in Congress to raise taxes with words he would live to regret: It took Bush until the fall of 1990 to go back on that promise. In a way, his decision to strike a tax hike deal with Congress was entirely consistent with his pre-1980 philosophy. The debt was now over $3 trillion (and rising) and revenues were slowing, thanks to a weakening economy. For the man who had shown his true colors when he'd lectured Jack Kemp about the evils of deficits, there was only one responsible choice. The deal Bush cut with leaders in Congress (including Dole, then the Senate's top Republican, and Robert Michel, the House minority leader) created a new 31 percent tax bracket, raised the gas tax, and ended a number of deductions. The goal was deficit reduction. But Bush faced a revolt from his own party, led by a rising House Republican star -- Newt Gingrich. One hundred and twenty-six of 173 House Republicansended up voting against the plan, as did24 of 43Republicans in the Senate. The roll call tallies revealed how much the Reagan wing had grown -- and how significantly the Bush wing had shrunk -- since 1980. In many ways, that 1990 budget vote was the last hurrah for the pre-Reagan crowd. When the economy seemed to worsen in 1991 and 1992, the right took it as proof of the poisonous effects of raising taxes. In fact, the early '90s recession actually began before the tax hikes were passed and put into effect and it technically ended in June 1991 (even if unemployment and economic anxiety remained high through 1992). But the right was in no mood to hear this, and the remaining Laffer skeptics in the GOP quickly concluded that it was in their political interest to play along. Thus, when Bill Clinton came to power in 1993 and proposed further tax hikes to fight the deficit,every single Republican in Congress stood against him. And when Dole grabbed the GOP nomination in 1996, he turned for a running mate to Jack Kemp -- and, junking years of resistance to supply-side theory, ran in the fall on a pledge to cut taxes 15 percent across the board. (That the Bush and Clinton tax increases actuallyproduced record surplusesby the end of the decade had no measurable effect on GOP economic philosophy.) Dole got the message back then, and just about every ambitious Republican since then has, too: Republicans like to talk about how bad deficits are -- but they're not nearly as important as tax cuts. Steve Kornacki is Salon's news editor. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More:Steve Kornacki
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 27, 2011
Hannity is a conservative-and proudly biased commentator. He does not present himself as a non-biased journalist (like Amanpour, Dennis the Menace on MTP, Bob Schieffer, Katie Couric, et al) Hannity, by the way gives a lot of airtime to liberals. Regularly; Like Beckel. Once again, my friend; your argument falls flat.[/quote] Hannity fell flat because BiBi actually put him in his place explained the 67 borders with land swaps and was almost apologetic for his bad behaviour lecturing Obama. Many liberal Jews dislike BiBi instensely and believe allowing rampatant settlements to be built as bad policy endangering their own security. Hannity interviewed the guy who wrote the book (on Palin)and just yelled over him, you ask why people don't go on the network simply because the host can't restrain their hatred disdain and own bias, they foam at the mouth, talk over their guest and want to belittle and humilate them, Fair and balanced, no unhinged rabid right wing looneys, Greta on the other hand actually treats her journalism seriously. So its either blonde bimbos, Food 101 or a bitter twisted old conservative guy or a college drop out. Poor old Rupert he used to buy quality respectable newspapers now he just funds an unabashed right wing rabble.
ReactReply
DA
DanandJanette
May 27, 2011
[quote][quote][quote][/quote] Well the President looks more presidential everyday and what does Fox do, no commentary no mention of the speech given to a joint sitting of parliament,[/quote] Looks more Presidential? Like when he is glaring at Netanyahu while Bibi is dressing him down publicly in the Oral Orifice? Or when he is appeasing terrorists? Or when he is ignoring the slaughter in Syria....saying that Assad should lead the country to democracy? Or when he takes a back seat in Libya? That's presidential leadership? I saw a report popping up about the speech in England, I believe Bret Baier's show had it, but I didn't listen to the full report. I just now tried to find it quickly, but stumbled on this-seems pretty F & B to me-almost a fluff piece for the prez.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/23/obama-begins-european-tour-ireland-discovers-irish-roots/[quote] [/quote] [quote][quote]instead a couple of minutes to mock a toast given to bettty windsor when they started playing the national anthem, how pathetic, Bruce you have no defence for this disgrace and incompetence.[/quote] [/quote] Again, sorry just heard something in passing about him not timing his toast well or something. Actually, I think I heard that on the radio, not Fox. So, it's ok for the MSM (and by the way, Fox) to point out Bush's verbal flops but not Obama's? C'mon, grow a skin. [quote][quote]Totally inept and that insane Hannity "interviewing" the guy who wrote a book against Palin, he uses all the tricks you accuse Liberals of. Again biased unbalanced and in his case unhinged even BoR finds him ridiculous and replusive.[/quote] [/quote] Hannity is a conservative-and proudly biased commentator. He does not present himself as a non-biased journalist (like Amanpour, Dennis the Menace on MTP, Bob Schieffer, Katie Couric, et al) Hannity, by the way gives a lot of airtime to liberals. Regularly; Like Beckel. Once again, my friend; your argument falls flat.[/quote] Can you imagine the field day the media would have if Bush signed and dated a guestbook that was off by three years?
ReactReply
DA
DanandJanette
May 27, 2011
[quote][quote]Sorry I couldn't resist this:- Why did he have to be so obvious as to rent the house next door? Why didn't he just rent a place in Russia? Because you know "You can see ........... "[/quote] lol.[/quote] You rascal, you. (wink)
ReactReply
DA
DanandJanette
May 27, 2011
[quote]Sorry I couldn't resist this:- Why did he have to be so obvious as to rent the house next door? Why didn't he just rent a place in Russia? Because you know "You can see ........... "[/quote] You DO realize she never said this, right?
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 27, 2011
[quote][quote]Bullshit... get off the kool-aid[/quote] Who me? Please explain- I know that you like to come in, throw a totally indefensible bomb, and run away. Care to elaborate?[/quote] In Australia we would say you have been on the turps or of course cordial, lime with a twist of lemon or lime...so btw how is summer going or late spring??
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 27, 2011
[quote][quote]Sorry I couldn't resist this:- Why did he have to be so obvious as to rent the house next door? Why didn't he just rent a place in Russia? Because you know "You can see ........... "[/quote] You DO realize she never said this, right?[/quote] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nLmYrSv-S8&NR=1&feature=fvwp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psyo4JDbJJ4&feature=related Finally a balanced approach Sarah and Hillary - enjoy
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 27, 2011
[quote][quote][quote][/quote] Hannity is the scumbag and beneath contempt as he just hectored the guy[/quote] Take a look at these two clips. Seems to me that Hannity presents a respectable position in both clips. No hectoring there. MSNBC's Ed Schultz's audio in the second... is that acceptable, Tony?http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/962095739001/white-house-creates-web-police-post-part-1/?playlist_id=86924 http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/962095738001/white-house-creates-web-police-post-part-2/?playlist_id=86924[/quote] I saw this live the first link has nothing to do with the book interview??? no look at the part 1 interview you re full of crap etc he just talks over the guy.............over over and over again When did I defend the other guy who gave a grovelling apology? Stick to the point now you are just throwing bombs? this is rather pointless. Hm listening to your favourite guys talk about taxes, they need to review Bush's actual view on voodoo economics, the equation is pretty simple, cutting revenue blew out the deficit, its not rocket science, when do people actually critique this crazy idea? Ideology triumphs over facts. Now the Fox extra cute dogs great lol!!
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 27, 2011
[quote][quote][quote][quote]Bullshit... get off the kool-aid[/quote] Who me? Please explain- I know that you like to come in, throw a totally indefensible bomb, and run away. Care to elaborate?[/quote] In Australia we would say you have been on the turps or of course cordial, lime with a twist of lemon or lime...so btw how is summer going or late spring??[/quote] In other words, drunk. Actually the Kool-Aid thing is more insulting (for those with a thin skin) I suppose because it refers to the followers of Jim Jones who blindly followed his orders to commit suicide. But both sides do it; I don't think it's a big deal. Our friend from Cali never offers any intelligent thoughts anyway.[/quote] http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kool-aid.html Hm thank you my friend always layers beneath, OMG please ask the fox guys to play some decent music, lol I have to mute or change channels!!! A guy here on Sky news just used the Kool aid reference in disucssing today's politics always learning something. They are discussing an ad campaign promoting a carbon tax and being a News organisation pointed out News Corp attempts to be carbon neutral how ironic
ReactReply
BE
BeachLisa
May 27, 2011
Tina Fey, Sarah Palin, same thing right?
ReactReply
BE
BeachLisa
May 27, 2011
[quote][quote]Sorry I couldn't resist this:- Why did he have to be so obvious as to rent the house next door? Why didn't he just rent a place in Russia? Because you know "You can see ........... "[/quote] You DO realize she never said this, right?[/quote] You DO realise Australia is not near Germany right? Don't patronise me and I won't patronise you. BTW capitals are a bit like LOL's - it creates loss of credibility
ReactReply
TO
tonyboothOriginal Poster
May 28, 2011
[quote][quote][quote][quote]Sorry I couldn't resist this:- Why did he have to be so obvious as to rent the house next door? Why didn't he just rent a place in Russia? Because you know "You can see ........... "[/quote] You DO realize she never said this, right?[/quote] You DO realise Australia is not near Germany right? Don't patronise me and I won't patronise you. BTW capitals are a bit like LOL's - it creates loss of credibility[/quote] I am sorry, my friend, but...huh?[/quote] Bruce I don't think this was directed at you............and no I can't see Germany out of my window either :)
ReactReply
DA
DanandJanette
May 28, 2011
[quote][quote][quote]Sorry I couldn't resist this:- Why did he have to be so obvious as to rent the house next door? Why didn't he just rent a place in Russia? Because you know "You can see ........... "[/quote] You DO realize she never said this, right?[/quote] You DO realise Australia is not near Germany right? Don't patronise me and I won't patronise you. BTW capitals are a bit like LOL's - it creates loss of credibility[/quote] That story of her seeing Russia from her back yard is very often repeated as fact, when in actuality she didn't say it. Would you enjoy having an assanine quote attributed to you as fact? I saw nothing in your post that indicated to me you knew it was an urban myth. My my, you seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder. And a laundry list of issues too. No caps, no lol's, I'm sure there are plenty more. Why don't you list them all here so no one else steps in it with you.
ReactReply
ME
Member
May 28, 2011
Tony, good post. If you want to go a step farther, take a look at
two documentaries, Why We Fight and Inside Job. In Why We Fight, we
hear from Eisenhower and his famous warning of the Military-Industrial
complex and why he saw it as a threat to democracy. We are shown how
that industry, in the beginning, by-passed Congress by dealing directly
with the Pentagon. In Inside Job, we can put together how Wall Street
learned from that industry, and then took it farther by simply buying
Congress and the executive office and apparently now, through the
executive branch, the judiciary as well.
Once at this point, you will recognize that we are all being
herded along, with our prejudices dictating which news show we watch to
support our biases. We are distracted, debating which of the bought
candidates are the better choice for some political office. All the
while, the underlying problem, financial and political corruption, goes
on unhindered.
It leads some to argue that in the war, capitalism v. democracy, capitalism is going to win, if it hasn't already. That this outcome will have a profound impact on individual freedom and opportunity, goes on unappreciated.
If we look for an example, we need look no further than our own
history, say 1875 to 1934, and what unregulated capitalism did to the
individual worker. It is a fascinating and scary study.
ReactReply