|
Bobbo
-
[profile]
|
Mon Aug 2nd 18:36 2010 / #1 |
|
Thanks, Fatman! Good stuff, and way past due, IMO... |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Sat Aug 14th 07:19 2010 / #2 |
|
What absolutely disingenuous drivel. Karl Marx couldn't have better misstated the facts. Why not also point out that if you forced every person in the US to give a pint of blood each month there would be no need for blood banks. Once again you folks believe there is no limit to the 'good' you could do if you could just get your hands on other people's money. Just remember what Margaret Thatcher said about that - 'the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money'! |
|
Bobbo
-
[profile]
|
Mon Aug 16th 16:56 2010 / #3 |
I bedlieve the empirical evidence speaks for itself, Cap'n. Under that socialist Ike the country went through an incredible boom. All you have to do is look at the course of the economy under duhbaya, when the fat cats got everyting, to the exclusion of the rest of us. Try to understand: taxes are good! (I admit, this may be a tall order...)
Happy trails! |
fatman
|
Wed Aug 18th 07:42 2010 / #4 |
August 8, 2010
America Goes Dark
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The lights are going out all over America — literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno.
Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel.
And a nation that once prized education — that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children — is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead.
We’re told that we have no choice, that basic government functions — essential services that have been provided for generations — are no longer affordable. And it’s true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn’t be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases.
And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn’t cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children.
But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and “centrist” Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade.
In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation’s foundations to crumble — literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education — they’re choosing the latter.
It’s a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run.
In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment.
It’s crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump.
That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we’re going into reverse.
But isn’t keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you’d notice. When we save a schoolteacher’s job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there’s a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle.
And what about the economy’s future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we’re going backward.
How did we get to this point? It’s the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can’t do anything right.
The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud — to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we’re seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.
So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we’ve taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. |
|
fatman
|
Wed Aug 18th 07:58 2010 / #5 |
Bobbo, Colbert accurately describes the so-called ridiculous theory of trickle down economics.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/34148 1/july-28-2010/the-word---ownership-society |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Wed Aug 18th 13:33 2010 / #6 |
|
Oh, let's hear for the Krugman two step TAX SPEND, TAX SPEND. Come on you guys can do that. Just close your eyes and your minds and dance to the socialist-statist big government tune and all your problems will miraculously disappear. Come on now - TAX SPEND, TAX SPEND ......... |
|
fatman
|
Wed Aug 18th 15:35 2010 / #7 |
Captain, do you actually think Republican/conservative policies have worked?
The top 3% got richer, the lower 80-90% got poorer or stayed the same (adjusted for inflation). Benefits at working/middle class jobs are at all time lows, and the industrial base has almost been completely destroyed, except of course for the military industry, which IS SUPPORTED BY TAXES. And the deficit is huge, which exploded under Republicans.
Do you actually like this situation?
Anyway, I'm not interested in debating with someone who acts like a child. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Thu Aug 19th 10:57 2010 / #8 |

Larry Elder
Obamanomics Fails: Will the President See the Light?
EMAIL LARRY ELDER | COLUMNIST'S ARCHIVE
gn-Up
The position of chair of the Council of Economic Advisers is open. How President Barack Obama fills it can tell us whether he's finally gone wobbly on Obamanomics -- maybe in time to arrest some of the damage.
Would President Obama, to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, ponder whether to nominate liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg or conservative Antonin Scalia? Would his finalists come down to Sonia Sotomayor or Samuel Alito? Elena Kagan or John Roberts?
Laughable, of course.
Such a range of choices would mean that the left-wing Obama does not know whether he wants a "constitutionalist" or a proponent of the "living, breathing document" school of jurisprudence -- whether he wants a "strict constructionist" or whether he wants a jurist who decides cases based, as he put it, on "empathy."
We know where he stands. And it is not on the side of Clarence Thomas.
Now, for the chair of the CEA, would Obama's list of possibilities include both the Obama-sympathetic left-wing economist Paul Krugman and supply-side economist Lawrence Kudlow?
Don't laugh. A Washington Post columnist actually suggested that Obama consider these two polar opposites. Honestly, Kudlow? To paraphrase press secretary Robert Gibbs, somebody needs drug testing.
Kudlow, a former member of the Reagan administration and current CNBC host and syndicated columnist, advocates lower taxes, free trade, smaller government and less regulation. Krugman, a Princeton professor and New York Times columnist, wants more "stimulus" spending and called the first package "too small and too cautious." They're as different as George Patton and John Lennon.
Obama wouldn't hire Kudlow to caddie his golf clubs, let alone to lead his team of economic advisers.
Obama is a community organizer, a person who, by definition, wants government to do more, not less. Obama rails against the "greed" of capitalism and believes that "at a certain point, you've made enough money." He urges higher taxes on the rich to "spread the wealth." He admits that higher capital gains taxes actually produce less revenue but supports a hike so that the rich pay a higher percentage -- a matter of "fairness." He doesn't understand that government subsidization of the housing market -- through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration and the Community Reinvestment Act -- sparked the unsustainable run-up in home prices. He ignores the consensus among economists and says, "The American dream ... means that we raise the minimum wage not just every 10 years, but all the time."
This is not a man who plans to get in touch with his inner Milton Friedman.
"I was wrong," Obama would say by selecting Kudlow. "Unemployment is near 10 percent. It remains high despite the passage of several stimulus packages predicted to jump-start the economy, several extensions of unemployment benefits, takeovers of two domestic automakers, and bailouts of banks and other financial institutions. We are now going in a new direction."
The outgoing CEA chair, Christina Romer, pushed for the $787 billion stimulus and predicted that its passage would prevent unemployment from reaching 8 percent. When unemployment busted past that level, Romer reportedly lost power and influence.
Was she ever comfortable? When Obama chose her, some thought it a sign that Obama wanted to govern as an economic moderate. A San Francisco newspaper called Romer "decidedly centrist." OK, that's San Francisco. But she and her economist husband wrote a paper in which they sounded like Ronald Reagan: "Tax increases are highly contractionary. ... Tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects." But Obama believes President George W. Bush wrongly gave tax cuts to the rich, who "didn't need them and didn't even ask for them."
"Every economist who's looked at it," said President Obama, "says that the Recovery Act has done its job." This is true -- except for all the economists who think it failed.
Stanford economist Michael Boskin says, "The permanent government expansion and higher tax rate agenda is a classic example of what not to do during bad economic times." Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster says, "The problem with the idea of pump-priming the economy through deficit spending is that the government must first pump money out of the economy by borrowing it. Government spending increases public demand; government borrowing reduces private demand. Governments don't create purchasing power. They destroy it through inflation or transfer it through borrowing and spending."
What about Krugman? The Post columnist writes, apparently with a straight face: "Krugman is best known for his New York Times columns arguing that the $787 billion, debt-busting stimulus bill was not enough. ... Maybe it's time for Krugman to put his money where his mouth is. You think government needs to spend more to get us out of this funk? Okay, Paul. Here's the key to the car."
No, we've been driving that car for nearly two years. Voters elected a dangerous left-winger who trusts government to run health care, car companies, banks and the student loan program.
The driver-in-chief not only sees no need for a course correction, he wants to step on the gas. |
|
fatman
|
Fri Aug 20th 11:27 2010 / #9 |
See Captain, this is the difference between you and me. You take the words from RADIO OR TV personality as scripture.
I on the hand would prefer to consider the opinion of someone who is a published researcher, oh, and by the, won the Nobel Prize in economics.
The correction that is needed was from the failed policies of conservatives.
Consider this Captain.
1920s, Republican rule, then the Great Depression
1980s-2000s, Republic rule then the Great Recession.
What a wonderful track record. Enough said. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Fri Aug 20th 12:05 2010 / #10 |
|
Krugman is a kook even if he has won the Nobel prize. Obama has won it as well. Your problem fatman is that you can't tell reality from a fairy tale and your assumption that I agree with everything republican is an example of that. I am a conservative. This means that I believe in conserving what we have found to work and benefit mankind and that is capitalism and I don't mean mercantilism which it is often confused with. You on the other hand, along with Krugman, suffer what Maggie Thatcher once described. Socialism is a great system of government until you run out of other people's money! |
|
EmilyJackM
-
[profile]
|
Fri Aug 20th 12:14 2010 / #11 |
|
La Tejita beach is popular with German tourists. The western part of it is nudist, or "naturalist," as the brochures say. One wonders whether the first sight that greeted these generally sober and hard-working Muslim migrants as they approached their Eldorado was the wagging breasts and swinging scrota of the gray-haired German bourgeoisie at leisure. Certainly the dozens of bathers who rushed to give first aid to the weary voyagers were not taken by surprise. Boats bearing clandestine workers have been arriving on Spain's southernmost beaches for more than a decade. Granted, it used to be a piecemeal affair. The small North African craft the Spaniards call pateras would arrive filled with a dozen or so Arab or Berber laborers. Now the traffic has been industrialized. Immigrants come in these huge lothios--or cayucos, to use the Spanish word--the largest of which hold more than 150 people. There were days towards the end of last summer when a half-dozen of them were looming on the southern horizon at the same time http://www.fineartofmoving.com |
|
fatman
|
Fri Aug 20th 17:10 2010 / #12 |
That shows your true character Captain. Every time I point out the major failings of the CONSERVATIVE policy of Republicans, you run for the hills and disassociate and say you're just a conservative and not a Republican, even though you supported the policies the whole time.
Again, I asked you before about it. Do you think the conservative polices of the last 30 years worked for all people except the rich? The answer is NOOOOOOO.
So you're a conservative. Let's look at the track record of them in the States. Opposed freeing the slaves, opposed a minimum wage, opposed worker rights, opposed social security, opposed civil rights for blacks, opposed public education, opposed unions, and women's suffrage.
Basically all conservative means is that you oppose higher wages for employees, higher benefits for employees and the public, and fairer treatment for all citizens.
If it doesn't turn a profit or tries to tax your yacht money, apparently it's bad. What a wonderful ideology Captain. Absolutely depraved.
“Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class”
Al Capone
Captain, I only would like a fairer form of capitalism. That's it. You're the radical buddy.
If you like the style of some third rate, Latin American plutocracy, I suggest you move there. Oh yea, I guess you did already. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Sun Aug 22nd 10:10 2010 / #13 |
Calm down fatboy. Don't get so upset and when I say I am a conservative I mean I am the kind of conservative with a libertarian bent and not a Rockefeller Republican which you probably like. I do vote Republican usually (well to tell the truth almost every time) because their views are closer to mine than the idiots the democrats nominate (Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Kendrik Meeks, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Babs Boxer, and on and on.
You fall into the one dimensional trap of believing that being "rich" is a permanent condition and that poor is also. This plays into your bigoted view that people with wealth all got it by stealing it from poor people (exactly the way Obama thinks by the way).
I have been poor and I have been not poor. I like being not poor better and frankly my pride (and not my self esteem whatever that is) has always prevented me from taking the handouts of the government and before you say a tax break is a hand out it is the government not taking as much from the person that earned it and not a handout.
Society, the markets, culture are all dynamic and those that are poor today may one day be rich because of conservative capitalism and again I don't mean mercantilism which is different. This is the dynamic that allows a very poor but fairly smart boy like myself to climb the mountain (ok, hill) to a better life. I wouldn't change that for the world and I think to deny this experience to others is the worst sort hubris.
What we have now with all this state intervention is a recipe for poor people to stay poor, to continue to live on the federal plantation as slaves to some supposedly superior ideology while their overseers from Harvard, Yale, Brown etc., determine what is best for them while stealing money from the productive sector to finance the endless shell game that is things like social security, food stamps, and the worst one of all the so called "earned income tax credit" which is simply a bribe to people that don't pay taxes to vote democratic.
In conclusion all I can say is that I am quite happy with my life. I have worked hard and sometimes even smart. Raised two wonderful children and survived two miserable wives and had a little fun along the way. I have also created more jobs accidentally in my time than Obama has with the trillions of tax payer dollars he has used to pay back his union friends and the fringe left wing. So, all in all, it has been an interesting journey and I can't recall a single time that would justify a rational person calling me a racist or of being less than generous to those less fortunate. I have put dozens and dozens of children though university by employing their mother's or father's in good jobs that pay well with decent benefits and a work place that respected their human dignity.
What have you done? |
|
Bobbo
-
[profile]
|
Sun Aug 22nd 18:27 2010 / #14 |
It occurs to me that even Krugman ignores the stinking mastodon remains in the corner of the room. Not only is the U$ NOT "taxing and spending," it's BORROWING and spending. If the Dummiecrats like to tax and spend, the Grodie Old Perverts love to borrow and spend, and snort up all the slops they can while the snorting's good. But the big problem is that nobody's mentioning the bloody wars of empire, as if there's always another trillion lying around somewhere to cautiously feed into the insatiable maw of the good old corporate-industrial complex. To be more precise, one would have to term the policy of the GOP [see above] "borrow and waste," in the fashion most certain to destroy the U$ in the long run. If the obscenely rich really want this criminal aggression, let them at least pay for it!!!!!!!!!
And I suppose "true conservatives" everywhere endorse the raping of the environment a la BP for the sake of a lot of quick bucks. Incorrigible! |
|
fatman
|
Mon Aug 23rd 09:44 2010 / #15 |
Captain, I can assure you I'm quite happy with my life, although I'm only half your age old man :-)
I know that poor people don't have to stay poor and the rich can of course lose their fortunes (although it's much easier for the middle class to do that now).
What you are talking about is income mobility, and that, TOO, has gotten worse under this conservative direction. Yes, here is the evidence Cappy.
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%2 0Dream%20Report.pdf
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_Mobilit yAnalysis.pdf
------------------------------------------
By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
-------------------------------------------
Yes, even many of those socialists of Europe out perform the US on that measure.
These facts might be inconvenient for the world view you have chosen to blindly believe Captain.
I too would want the US to be number one in this area, but it's simply not the case. When you have Republicans refusing to tax the rich, or corporations at appropriate amounts, neither party understanding the effects of deindustrialization in the pursuit of cheap Asian products, and the willingness to cut funding for SCHOOLS of all things, of course badly educated people who's only local hopes of securing a job are at the local Sam's club are not going to move up the economic ladder as easily as before.
Do you seriously think that by defunding public schools, keeping health care expensive for the poor and middle class, and having a financial system that begs that people stay in debt
(real servitude) for their lives, is a recipe to help the lower 90% advance? I can say, the vast majority of the Democratic Party understands this point. The Republicans on the other hand couldn't care less about the general welfare of the country.
Captain, the fact that you received an education from a public school, but now have no problem with cutting funding for schools for today's children in the name of preserving tax cuts for the rich should give you a moment of reflection. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Mon Aug 23rd 14:41 2010 / #16 |
Good Lord! Public schools? The problem with public schools is the government's intervention and the rise of the teachers unions as a reliable source of both votes and campaign funding.
I look at the facts, if that is what they are that you produce, and come to an entirely different conclusion. The problem with intergenertional gap as you call it is that we have millions of poorly educated illegals here and we have a huge and now permanment underclass specifically because of the "great society" transfer payments started by LBJ.
I bascially agree with you about the deindustrialization issue but my problem with that is things like the minimum wage which I am sure you are a great proponent of and the welfare system that makes it impractical to employ even the Americans that want to work (and there is not that many of them).
If you think the democratic party cares about the poor people you are simply misguided. All they care about is keeping them poor, demonizing the conservatives, and making sure they stay where they are so they are reliable votes for the dems. That is also the reason for so called immigration reform - to get another permanent block of underclass hispanics which will also vote for them.
Why do you hate the rich? What is a rich person? Is it a Kennedy or Rockefeller that inherited their money? Or is it the guy that started working at a service station and because of hard work, frugality and common sense ends up owning 10 service stations?
At least Bobo candidly admits that he is still in his anti-war mode and banging on about the republicans borrowing and spending rather than taxing and spending. I agree with him we should not be borrowing money to spend it especially on useless causes supporting ACORN, the Department of Education, 95% of the State Department and the rest of useless bureaucrats that make up SEIU and their thugs. What do you think of the union guys hiring minimum wage people to do their picketing for them? How do you feel about the people that live in the states that were sensible now bailing out all the left wing loons in California, Michigan and places like that?
It is all absolute crap because the only person that should decide how I spend my money is me and the only person that should earn money for me is me. Following you guys (and now you have one of your true believers in the White House and as speaker) will lead us to ruin much more quickly than following the republicans which will also lead us to ruin but more slowly.
I genuinesly believe there is going to be a revolution in the United States and I hope against hope that there are still enough brave women and men around to bring that revolution to a successful conclusion.
p.s. It's about time for one of the editors to cut off my free speech rights here on the board. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Mon Aug 23rd 15:36 2010 / #17 |
Rather than comment directly on Obama, here is a fable about an Ant & and Grass hopper.
Ant & Grasshopper (old version)
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: - Be responsible for yourself!
Ant & Grasshopper (new version)
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, ABC & the BBC all show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America & Britain are stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...' ACORN the liberal group that advocated prostitution for minors stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing 'We shall overcome'. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake.
President Obama and his socialist friends from Britain condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY FOR AMERICANS : - Be careful how you vote in 2010 & 2012. |
|
fatman
|
Tue Aug 24th 02:09 2010 / #18 |
Ok, that seriously was just a bunch of wank. Again, I'm not interested in having a debate with a child.
As for rich, that's relative, and in the US, I would say that is the top 3-5% of earners. Of course most of the tax burden should be on the top 1%, which really live like tycoons.
Captain, just take a look at Germany. National health care, higher taxes, better benefits for workers, a unionized manufacturing base, a lower unemployment rate, and a bigger welfare state. It's doing better than the US.
Or heck, just look at Canada, with it's highly regulated banks and health care. Again, doing better.
Again, I wish it wasn't so, but the US made some serious mistakes over the last 30 years, and deregulation and not investing in our country (yes, through taxes), and wars, were just some of them.
Again, this might be hard for you to accept, as you seem to be interested in fairy tales about laissez faire trickle down economics.
Peace. :-) |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 07:02 2010 / #19 |
|
We have paid for all of Europe's security for the last sixty years and the German economy is the finest example of the US largess and the goodness of the American people. The only one that is childish here is you and your lollipop economics where someone else always picks up the tab for your socialist views. |
|
fatman
|
Tue Aug 24th 09:29 2010 / #20 |
Right Captain. The US made the modern German economy. So BMW is actually an American company?
But I agree, take all that wasteful military spending and spend it on US schools, health care, and building trains and wind turbines. That's what you were talking about, right?
Answer one question Captain. If you want a modern civilization, with a government, police force, firefighters, modern infrastructure, and in your case, a gargantuan global military force, it has to be paid for.
So who should pay for most of it Captain?
The poor?
The middle class?
Or the ...
And Captain, the bottom 80% of the US only owns about 10-20% of the total wealth in the States. So if that's the case, they should only pay that share in ALL taxes...income state and federal, payroll, and sales.
Sorry Captain, I would have liked to have seen you get rich in Somalia. Libertarian paradise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0 |
|
Bobbo
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 11:17 2010 / #21 |
|
Can anyone out there give me three good, rational reasons the U$ should be spending trillions in borrowed money on aggressive Wars of Empire? |
|
fatman
|
Tue Aug 24th 12:52 2010 / #22 |
|
Nope. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 15:39 2010 / #23 |
Convenient for you now to agree to stop the spending on defense since the Soviet Union is kaput. What you are talking about is not taxes but wealth redistribution which is what I thought you meant all along. You Obama, Nancy and the rest of the intelligensia can tell us poor mugs what to do. You Marxist/Stalinist/Socialist folks still insist on spending other peoples money. Why don't you spend your own money?
Bobbo nice to hear from you (back in the sixties again, refrain). |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 15:40 2010 / #24 |
Convenient for you now to agree to stop the spending on defense since the Soviet Union is kaput. What you are talking about is not taxes but wealth redistribution which is what I thought you meant all along. You Obama, Nancy and the rest of the intelligensia can tell us poor mugs what to do. You Marxist/Stalinist/Socialist folks still insist on spending other peoples money. Why don't you spend your own money?
Bobbo nice to hear from you (back in the sixties again, refrain). |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 15:40 2010 / #25 |
Convenient for you now to agree to stop the spending on defense since the Soviet Union is kaput. What you are talking about is not taxes but wealth redistribution which is what I thought you meant all along. You Obama, Nancy and the rest of the intelligensia can tell us poor mugs what to do. You Marxist/Stalinist/Socialist folks still insist on spending other peoples money. Why don't you spend your own money?
Bobbo nice to hear from you (back in the sixties again, refrain). |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 15:46 2010 / #26 |
|
|
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 15:45 2010 / #27 |
|
|
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 15:43 2010 / #28 |
|
|
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 24th 15:43 2010 / #29 |
|
|
|
fatman
|
Tue Aug 24th 17:29 2010 / #30 |
Actually, I think military spending was WAY too high since WW2 ended.
Even Eisenhower thought so,
the last true good Republican.
I'll let him close out this discussion.
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/ike_chance_fo r_peace.html
------------------------------------
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Wed Aug 25th 00:14 2010 / #31 |
and apple pie and the fourth of July.....yada yada yada
Einsenhower was a military man and knew much of what he spoke and was generally a pretty good president because he didn't do much really.
I am no more for outrageous spending than you are but I am not stupid enough to believe that we should continue to tax people into obvlion just so we can give it to the lazy asses that won't work.
When that right is gone you have dictactors and megalomaniacs running the world though the prism of their own misconceptions and in some cases their sociopathy or insanity.
If you had any real understanding of the way the world works you would know that private property generally and specifically the right to keep what you earn through your own efforts is the most fundamental of human rights. |
|
fatman
|
Wed Aug 25th 08:32 2010 / #32 |
Yep, I know you can't accept the idea of taxes and a functioning government that works to keep the general welfare....Captain. You're right, the United States is stupid to tax the rich. And the lazy poor aren't taxed enough, and ask for too much money when they want a raise from $6.50 an hour to $6.90 an hour. 40 CENTS!!! Those assholes!
And watch out for Sweden Cappy, I'm pretty sure they have every intention of ruling the world with their lefty wicked ways.
That's why I'm telling you, move to Somalia. No taxes, no functioning government, no regulations.
Libertarian Paradise baby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
------------------------------------
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Wed Aug 25th 10:39 2010 / #33 |
All I want is all you do gooders to do is to keep your hands out of my pocket. Envy, greed, pseudo empathy, naiveté, brainwashed, puerile, gullible, hubris - all these are qualities of the people that spew the liberal dogma like you. It is always either or. Either guns or butter, life or death, sickness or health. All these false choices tend to limit your ability to think and act in an adult manner. Setting up straw men and then knocking them down is not debate but polemics.
Get a grip! Have some fun! Make lots of money (and if you want to give it to the government) and enjoy life, don't spend it wallowing in the swamp that is apparently your view of the way things should be. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Wed Aug 25th 10:42 2010 / #34 |
|
And by the way you are not paying for a fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat - what you want to do is pay for the wheat with my money and then give it away. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Wed Aug 25th 16:38 2010 / #35 |
|
|
|
Bobbo
-
[profile]
|
Thu Aug 26th 14:19 2010 / #36 |
I repeat:
Can anyone out there give me three good, rational reasons the U$ should be spending trillions in borrowed money on aggressive Wars of Empire?
You seem to be avoiding that question, Captain. Seems to me that Ike made lots of good points in that speech (which was actually written by Ike's brilliant brother Milton - yet I give Ike credit for presenting it). The problem I have with your position is this: There is no room for any of your tax money going to support for the less advantaged in our society. Fine. I don't agree, but that's what you want. But you seem to love our country's policy of blowing away (or burning up, whatever) anyone that Limbaugh et al. blast with hateful invective sufficiently. Isn't tax money supposed to pay for that stuff? So how does that square? Is it because it's OK, since we're borrowing that money from China? Doesn't sound very "conservative" to me. Please clarify. |
|
Bobbo
-
[profile]
|
Thu Aug 26th 14:46 2010 / #37 |
PS Nice to hear from you too, Cappy. About the sixties: the sixties were a grand time, at least for me. Here is what seems somewhat analogous to my feeling nostalgic about it:
An American Indian chief (sorry, can't recall his name) was interviewed, and the whitie interviewing him said something like:
Chief, you've watched the white man all your life, as history has marched on. Please share your observations.
When the white man came to these shores there were no taxes, no private property, no poverty, and there was peace, stability, tranquility; the men hunted and fished all day while the women did the "work around the settlement," and then they all made love all night. Only a white man could be so stupid as to believe he could improve on that system.
So, yeah, I remember the sixties fondly, sort of a version of Paradise Lost, I suppose. And, imagine, I spent four years of that decade wearing homely, definitely unstylish olive drab costumes! |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Fri Aug 27th 05:41 2010 / #38 |
Hi Bobbo:
I am not some sort of war monger. I just don't believe that these wars are based on some sort of imperial/commercial motive but rather are the result of a desire to protect the American people. Now that may be wrong or right and everyone is welcome to their own view of it but if left to my own devices I would not come to the aid of the people in Kosovo, I would not have invaded Irag, nor would I be in Afghanistan. On the other hand I might have moved trillions of tons of earth to cover some of those places up. I would talk softly and carry a really big stick and I think if our government would do that we would all be much better off.
Unfortunately the allegory about the American Indian overlooks the fact that they in many, many instance were in fact real savages that killed, enslaved and tortured each other mercilessly. The nobel savage living at one with nature in a pastoral paradise is another myth perpetuated by those luddites that believe that America is the source of most of the evil in the world and that we are the logical result of the march of Western civilization.
I bet you cut a very dashing figure in your bloused boots and stylish kermit outfit and wowed all the girls who were no doubt trying to bring you back from the dark side.
I'll be there in November for a few days. Maybe we can have a beer?; Please forgive typos as I had long afternoon with Lady Absolute. |
|
Bobbo
-
[profile]
|
Fri Aug 27th 21:16 2010 / #39 |
Hey Cap'n! I'm glad to hear you wouldn't have invaded those countries, but I also have grave reservations, to say the least, about the trend toward remote-control murder, where adolescent, video-game playing morons sit hunched over consoles in bunkers in Florida and pilot drones, etc., wantonly blowing away anything that moves, never jeopardizing their precious health for an instant. I'm sort of surprised that you haven't become an avid Obomber supporter, as his actions (not his melifluous rhetoric) are far more extreme than duhbaya's. Oh well, the mind works in mysterious ways indeed.
November for a beer or three sounds great. With a little notice I'll happily organize one of my famous barbecues, and we can kick back, enjoying fine company and fine food and drink.
I completely understand the Lady Absolut dilemma. Her Brother Beefeater and I had quite the go-round the other day.
Happy trails and smooth landings, friend.
PS A dashing figure? I don't know. Everywhere I went during my stint acquaintances said I looked like a clown in my uniform. They thought so at Ft Dix, in Monterey, at Goodfellow AFB, in Bad Aibling, and last but perhaps most hazardously, at Ft. Bragg, where I was assigned to the 13th Psyops Battalion, attached to Special Forces - that was one scaary place for a hippy! |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Sun Aug 29th 06:57 2010 / #40 |
Ah, Fort Leg! I remember calling the 18th Airborne and having to hold the phone away from my ear as some idiot basically yelled "AIRBORNE ALL THE WAY, SIR!" When I was the Director of Operations (g3 I think in the army) of the aeromedical evacuation unit we bloused our boots and generally looked the part but not a one of us would have considered jumping out of an airplane even if it was on fire.
I'll let you know when I am coming. Obama as Niles Gardiner at the London Daily Telegraph says -
The Obama agenda has in many ways been an extraordinary and unprecedented assault on the free enterprise system that made the United States the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. It has succeeded not only in making America weaker, poorer and gravely more indebted, but also in eroding the very principles of liberty and freedom upon which it is based. The backlash will be huge. This November, the sinking Obama presidency is heading for a political iceberg that will rock the foundations not only of Capitol Hill, but the White House as well. |
|
fatman
|
Sun Aug 29th 11:03 2010 / #41 |
Cappy, let's be clear which party is most responsible for made the country POORER, WEAKER, AND INDEBTED: Republicans!!!!
1. Who was president when we added 6 trillion to the debt? And which congress was in power?
Republicans.
2. Who put 2 wars on a credit card?
Republicans
3. Who wrecked the economy through deregulated markets that they championed?
Republicans
4. Who has assisted in transferring the wealth of the nation from the poor, and middle class to the top 5% by beating back organized labor?
Republicans
The Republican Idiocy
By Richard Reeves
LOS ANGELES -- It was John Stuart Mill in the middle of the 19th century who dismissed Great Britain's Conservative Party as "the stupid party." Commenting on that immediately after last year's presidential election, The Economist, published in London, said this:
"The title of the 'stupid party' now belongs to the Tories' trans-Atlantic cousins, the Republicans.
"There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party's defeat on Nov. 4. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000 -- many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases -- by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South."
The proof of that pudding was dramatized last week in Washington when every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the new president's economic stimulus plan. It is not that the nay-saying Republicans have a plan of their own; they agree on nothing except cutting taxes. Their leader, Rush Limbaugh, the entertainer, has told them that their job is to make sure that Obama fails.
In an American context, Republicans have been called America's stupid party for much of their history, but that title clearly passed to the Democrats in the 1970s and 1980s, and perhaps for most of '90s and on into the 21st century. Now, led by wacko pundits like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and a bunch of less-prosperous firebugs, the Republicans have lost all sense of what is happening in the country.
Their boy, George W. Bush, left the country in fear and loathing. Obama was seized on as something of a savior, and he has shown he knows how to play the role. There is no way Obama, or perhaps anyone, knows how to get out of the current mess. But he does know what most people want at this uncertain moment. As he made clear in his Inaugural Address:
"The stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."
We are going to see a lot of trial and error from the White House, as generations before us did in the 1930s. But the point is, we have to try -- and odds are we'll figure something out.
If ideologically driven Republicans are seen as nothing more than obstructionists, they will end up in the worst place in their history. They are flirting with irrelevance these days, while Obama is dancing as fast he can, trying to extend a hand if they are willing to unclench their fists.
It wouldn't hurt either if Democrats in Congress unclenched their fists, too. There is more to political life than saying over and over again that we won the election and we can do anything we want. That, it could be argued, is how the Republicans destroyed themselves over the past few years.
"The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. ... During the primary debates, three out of 10 Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution," wrote the Economist.
"Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled 'Ideas Have Consequences'; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too."
------------------------------------------------
Captain, you simply are just one disingenuous person. You can't accurately recall history, even your own. For example, YOU DID SUPPORT THE BUSHY WARS through and through!!!! And there's plenty of evidence on this website alone. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Sun Aug 29th 13:17 2010 / #42 |
I certainly did support the war. I never said I didn't. I said I wouldn't have started it. Once started I did wholeheartedly support it. Personally I would have turned a square mile around the dictator into molten glass.
You once again twist things to suit your liberal panty waist positions on everything. Let's face it you are very likely a loser that is just plain envious and for sure I am a winner and don't care about you at all.
Let's also get this straight - the economic melt down is directly tied to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the rest of the idiots democrats that forced the banks to lend money to people they knew couldn't pay it back. The SEC which is full of democratic lawyers waiting to work on Wall Street was watching porn while a lot of the swindles were going on. We don't need more regulation, we need less.
On taxation, the only policy I would ever support would be that everyone pays the same amount of their income. No body should be forced by the government to subsidize the labor unions, the layabout class, plaintiffs lawyers and the whole monstrous Federal bureaucracy.
We are going to see something in November that is going to warm the cold cockles of my heart and will undoubtedly send you in paroxysms of hate. |
|
fatman
|
Sun Aug 29th 22:37 2010 / #43 |
Oh Cappy, it seems I offended you. I'm sorry I called you out on your BS.
http://prague.tv/forum/ann-coulter-beauty-and-brains:7281
I support the war in Irag because we are there. In hindsight it doesn't appear to have been the best of decisions but we are there now and it has become a defensive war. If we walk away now we will truly be facing an apocolyptic post war world which is likely to mean the end of western society as we know it.
----------------------------------------------
In hindsight???? There were well over tens of millions of Americans like Bobbo and I that did not need hindsight to realize the war was a mistake before it started. And if you thought none of that stuff was true about Saddam, then why nuke a city of 7 million innocent people? Face it you troglodyte, you bought the whole utterly false premise that Iraq was a threat to the United States, harbored WMDs, and had ties to terrorists that had, or were going to attack the US. Why did you think this? Because you're not a critical thinker Captain. You blindly believe the muck that comes from such uneducated bloviators, like yourself, like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity..etc (There are simply too many dim-witted conservative leaders to list them all here.)
So you think 2 Democrats brought down the most powerful economy, at a time when the Congress, the White House, and the courts were dominated by conservatives? And by the way, the SEC leaders are appointed by the president! What was Bush doing at that time????
It's laughable Cappy. You're so utterly dense it's hilarious, like trying to watch a retard ride a unicycle (which, you are of course the winner). And when I point this out, you revert to how much money you have, like it's a measure of your self-worth. We'll it's sad that you feel like you have to do that. Although I'm sure the wives that left you and the hookers you have to pay for sex measure you by a different standard.
Ouch..... |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Mon Aug 30th 12:00 2010 / #44 |
You little dweebs always resort to ad hominem attacks when you can't twist the words to suit your infantile fairy tale view of the world. It is just not worth the effort to rebut your non-sensical and puerile attacks on me.
You are just a little man with a big inferiority complex and you should really try and get over it sometime before you reach social security pension age.'
My self worth is of interest to you only because you don't have any accomplishments (or money) to use in trying to compare yourself to a successful person. Talk of hookers is really off base and entirely offensive but I wouldn't really expect any better of you.
Keep living out your little fantasy "kerouac: life but should you ever wake up one day and have just a scintilla of self awareness you will see what a miserable little man that you are. |
|
fatman
|
Tue Aug 31st 00:09 2010 / #45 |
Captain, I have plenty of accomplishments, more than many people, and I am living the life of my dreams. For god sakes, I'm an engineer that solves problems and creates solutions spanning Europe and then some. I'm married to a beautiful woman that's also incredibly smart and been my best friend for over 13 years. I travel constantly, I am a published photographer, play the guitar, drums, and can hold my own on a bass. I was a state and national champ in sports back in the US (in JROTC of all things!!) and I have friends the world over that I can call at a moments notice for anything. I was an accomplished/award winning student at my university, and I speak several languages reasonably well. And I shall do much more.
The difference between you and I Cappy, is that I am not one to brag or feel superior to other people that don't live the life I do. Those differences are simply life choices and preferences, or the result of simply environment and practicality. Plus, you still don't seem to get the point that I'm neither impressed by money or power, nor do I crave it. Get it?!?!? |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 31st 02:49 2010 / #46 |
If you are all that happy why on earth would you make comments about me and hookers? How would you like it if I were to use that word in the same way about you. Don't you see how small and insecure that you present yourself. Calling me a retard, dense, and all these other names tells me that you are not really happy with yourself and your life no matter what you say. If you were living the dream you wouldn't be spending your time talking of me and my ex wives, would you now?
Butch up a little and try to understand that your fairy tale view of the world where you take money from me and give it to your special little friends is not something I will ever agree with. However, feel free to give all your money to the government to help improve the world.
p.s. What in the world would jROTC have to do with being a champion at sport? State and national? Prove it! What sort of engineer are you? Solutions spanning Europe and then some? Wow, that is breathtaking stuff. Sorry, I already own all the swamp land I need. |
|
fatman
|
Tue Aug 31st 14:47 2010 / #47 |
FYI, JROTC programs compete in rifle shooting, orienteering, drill, and simply physical training (pentathlon type competitions).
Anyway, yes, I was 1st in Texas in rifle shooting, 3rd (or 2nd) in orienteering (tons of running through the countryside with a bad map), 3rd in drill (team), and nationally my rifle team came in 1st, with me being 7th in the nation.
Like this:
http://cadetcommand.armylive.dodlive.mil/2010/03/30/army-jro tc-teams-national-air-rifle-champs/
As for engineering, I studied Computer Engineering and Computer Science, but as for my profession, I'm a Information Systems Engineer (closely related). I think you can wiki the rest.
And Captain, as for my record I could send my freaking medals to you, but I don't need to prove crap to you. My my family, friends, and peers know what I have done.
Why don't you try proving all the ridiculous assertions you make about this or that in US politics? |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Tue Aug 31st 18:24 2010 / #48 |
|
Ah, that kind of sports champion. Very interesting, and did you actually get a degree while doing all these very impressive studies? Yes, yes I am sure your family and friends are very supportive as they should be for such a remarkable fellow. Good for them but tell them to work a little harder as your self esteem level seems a bit, now mind you just a bit, anemic. |
|
fatman
|
Wed Sep 1st 15:51 2010 / #49 |
|
Cappy, I'm only depressed because I have yet to bring down FOX news, America's PRAVDA. ;-) Cheers. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Wed Sep 1st 21:33 2010 / #50 |
|
I can see how that would be depressing. Leave FOX and try bringing your buddy Olberman down, he only has about three people watching him anyway. Pravda, indeed! |
|
fatman
|
Thu Sep 2nd 09:25 2010 / #51 |
"Pravda (Russian: Правда, "Truth", About this sound pronunciation (help·info)) was a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991"
FOX news employs Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and John Bolton.
Basically at least half of the Republican candidates for 2012.
And FOX (PRAVDA) NEWS just gave 1,000,000 green backs to the Republican party...directly. Holy shit!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Fox_parent_gives _1_million_to_RGA.html
Cappy, PRAVDA was a despicable piece of trash that was only a sound horn of the Communist Party.
FOX NEWS is a despicable piece of trash that is only a sound horn of the Republican Party.
So I guess Pravda is abhorrent for you because they were an organ of the communist party, and not because they were an organ of "a" party? |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Thu Sep 2nd 14:33 2010 / #52 |
Fatman, you are going around in circles faster than normal on this "pravda" issue. I know exactly what pravda means in russian and in Czech (the same). I think you will find that the donation was made openly and with no attempt to hide the source. I suppose you think the Huffington Puffington Post is one of the foremost exemplars of true journalistic integrity?
Fox News at least has token opposition(Juan Williams, Al Sharpton, Ed Rendell, etc.) to the conservative views on whereas PMSNBC and the rest of the liberal media don't even attempt to that. The mainstream media is so corrupt they don't even recognize their duplicity in the great progressive movement. |
|
fatman
|
Fri Sep 3rd 08:03 2010 / #53 |
|
Prove it! I gave my evidence. Where is yours? |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Fri Sep 3rd 08:45 2010 / #54 |
|
What on earth are you talking about? Prove what? What evidence did you give? Can you say sequitur non? |
|
fatman
|
Fri Sep 3rd 17:03 2010 / #55 |
FOX news employs Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and John Bolton.
Basically at least half of the Republican candidates for 2012.
And FOX (PRAVDA) NEWS just gave 1,000,000 green backs to the Republican party...directly
-------------------------------------------------
If that's not being part of the Republican party and not supporting it, I don't what is.
At this point, the defense has not provided any evidence to the contrary.....
So where is the proof that FOX is non-partisan, and the rest of the media is complicit is some type of conspiracy? |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Sun Sep 5th 10:35 2010 / #56 |
|
Katy Couric, Matt Lauer, Keith Olberman, and on and on and on...... |
|
fatman
|
Sun Sep 5th 22:48 2010 / #57 |
HA! That's the best you can do? How weak. Not one Democratic official, rep, or candidate mentioned, or any money.
Nice try Cappy....but that would be a FAIL.
Later Comrade. Enjoy the propaganda and long live the Party!!!! |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Wed Sep 8th 07:34 2010 / #58 |
|
That's the point fatto. The lamestream media do the heavy lifting for the dims on television. Never once is any gathering called left wing but every tea party event is right wing, fringe, or some other term of derision. |
|
fatman
|
Tue Sep 14th 19:20 2010 / #59 |
NBC’s Meet the Press, CBS’s Face the Nation, Fox News Sunday, CNN’s State of the Union, and ABC’s This Week are the five major Sunday talk shows that aim to bring “a diverse group of voices” that “reflect the cultural, economic, and political landscape” of the U.S. However, according to a new study published by George Mason University School of Law this month, the Congressional guests featured in 2009 were anything but diverse, failing not only to represent the demographics of the American population but also the diversity of Congress. In fact, according to the study, the congressional voice was disproportionately represented by one type of guest in 2009: “white, male, senior, and Republican”:
“In 2009 the talk shows told us (by their selection of Congressional guests) that the people who matter are disproportionately white, male, senior and Republican — disproportionate not just when compared to the American population overall, but also when compared to the population of Congress itself,” concluded a study published this month in The Green Bag, a quarterly journal supported by the George Mason University School of Law.
The study, of the five network Sunday shows from February to December 2009, found that while 14.6 percent of members of Congress were minorities, just 2.5 percent of the Congressional TV guests were minorities; and that while 16.9 percent of members were female, 13.5 percent of the guests were female.
The study also singled out “the 49 white, male U.S. senators in office six-plus years” who represented 9.2 percent of the Congressional populace, but 61.4 percent of the TV guests.
This Week’s executive producer Ian Cameron explains that “bookings are dictated by the news and newsmakers” and “few of those newsmakers in top leadership positions are women or members of minorities.” In reviewing 2009, he noted that the guests relevant to the most prevalent issues were “white and mostly men.” According to the study, the top guests were Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). The Republican leadership “appeared on these shows a total of 43 times” while Democratic Leadership, including the first female Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), “appeared only 11 times.”
http://www.greenbag.org/v13n4/v13n4_mitchell.pdf |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Thu Sep 16th 06:11 2010 / #60 |
|
And? |
|
fatman
|
Fri Sep 17th 18:07 2010 / #61 |
|
HA! Cappy, seriously, you're a real gem. I wanna hug you like dumb puppy. Beer sometime? |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Fri Sep 17th 19:32 2010 / #62 |
|
Sure, would love to. I don't much look like a dumb puppy though. |
|
fatman
|
Sun Sep 19th 23:45 2010 / #63 |
|
I'll be in Prague from the 27th to Oct.2. |
|
ColonelColonel
-
[profile]
|
Mon Sep 20th 12:16 2010 / #64 |
|
Sorry, won't be there until November sometime. Stopping by on my way to and from India and Nepal. Maybe another time. |
|
Galeria Harfa
Ristorante Soave
Century 21
Feedback Form
