The Big Picture:

There are so many crazy talking politicians and silly season antics; it becomes difficult to focus on big picture issues. Here are some bottom lines as I see it:

1. 1. There will be some tea party candidates elected on November 2^nd. Probably enough victories for the Tea Party to claim some legitimacy as they continue to hold the Republican Party hostage. Yes, that is what I meant to say…hostage. Power and control is the royal honey in politics. Once a group has tasted it, they will never willingly give it up.

1. 2. The Tea Party is not going away. The reason this is true has everything to do with Fox News. The daily, hourly drum beat of conservative propaganda will continue to move the Republican Party further and further to the right and leave moderates in the cold. Moderate voices like Mitt Romney and Meghan McCain will be lone voices in a sea of noise.

1. 3. Pendulums swing both ways. In ‘08 the pendulum swung to the left, in 2010 it will swing to the right, and in 2012 it will swing left again. Yes, President Obama will win a second term. Time is running out for the conservatives and they know it. The demographics are working against them as there are fewer older conservatives and increases in the minority population. Consistently opposing immigration reform, opposing unemployment insurance, opposing small business loans, opposing equal rights for gays, and opposing education reform will have its consequences.

1. 4. In the meantime, I have great concerns that the political parties will further polarize (if that is possible) and the nation will suffer as a result. The art of compromise has been lost, with a new attitude of “my way or the highway”. Republicans want to lower taxes, cut spending and provide fewer services while the Democrats want to build infrastructure, improve education, create an energy grid, all of which costs money. And herein lies the pivotal direction for the country.

Do we become a third world country, controlled by the wealthy, with a shrinking middle class and a large pool of poor people? Or do we seek solutions to our many domestic problems? The issues are clear. My question is will the media “man-up” and actually do the job they are expected to do? Will they go beyond sound bites and spin, expose corruption in both parties, and inform the American people what is happening by telling the whole story?

Good to see you back. Nice way to end the week.

The November elections are just around the corner. What has President Obama done so far? How about;

Saving the country from a major depression TARP worked and returned an 8% profit so far, and the Stimulus (ARRA) has saved 3.5 Million Jobs and created another 600,000+ new private sector jobs.

Increased Student Aid and lowered the cost of student loans

Health Care Reform

Financial Reform

Equal Pay

Tax Cuts for Small Business and much need capital

Start winding down Iraq

And much more………

The US Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads and other “Special Interest Groups” have now been exposed for the underhanded tactics they have been using this election cycle. 84% of the American People want an explanation as to who is funding what. Stockholders are demanding to know how their BOD is spending their money on politics.

We now know why the Republican Party stopped the Disclosure Act. To hide from the American People those entities (Foreign and Domestic) that are trying to buy political favors to foster their agenda over that of the people.

Some have been fostering the falsehood that the Democrats also did not want this Disclosure Act to pass. I saw this statement several times since I started writing about the US-COC early last week. Once again the rhetoric from the right does not match the deeds. In July this bill came up for vote, it passed in House and the Senate had 57 Yes votes and 41 No votes in the. Since it did not get 60 votes it went down to defeat. Not one republican voted yes. In September it came up for vote again, passing in the House and this time the vote in the Senate was 59 Yes and 39 No (2 republicans did not vote – I wonder why????). Again no 60 votes and it goes down to defeat and again all republicans voted no and all Democrats voted Yes.

The falsehoods and hypocrisy is getting more and more blatant every day. The outright lack of any sense of shame is just astounding. In my opinion we are setting new lows in moral and ethical responsibility ever day. Facts and truth seem to have taken an extended holiday to be replaced by out right lies, deceit and deception. This has infected MSM, Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike and we the American People and paying the price with no jobs, weak economy, a disappearing Middle Class and a new breed of incompetent people running for office.

Hi Feisty, I saw a headline where Chuck Todd pronounced that Obama had lost support from Whites. I looked at my skin and thought: "gee, I look pretty pale for someone who is an ardent Obama supporter." Personally, I believe, the average American is more interested in his or her job, family and waistline, than in politics, but the pundits think there is a sea of people out there following every development in the blogosphere. Not true.

And pundits and polls mess with your head. All of a sudden, in Maine, the Independent candidate Cutler is said to be rising in the polls, and I find myself thinking "oh, no, I better vote for him, so the Tea Partier doesn't win." It's all a big expectations game, for sure.

Last week, the Democratic House incumbent was said to have a 20 point lead over her opponent, this week the polls tell us they are neck and neck.

I don't follow baseball or football, but I suppose this anxiety I feel is what fans do going into the superbowl season. Or, more likely, a movie goer watching an old fashioned Western. Pauline is tied to the railroad tracks, as far as I'm concerned, and if the Republicans win it's curtains for her.

Navy:

You sure are doing a fine job spot-lighting the fact, yes the fact, that foreign countries are trying to buy America with money being laundered through the Chamber of Commerce. It may not be a big deal inside the beltway, but Main Street Americans think what the Republicans are doing is wrong. Foreign money in American politics will make close elections even closer and the Democrats will like win some seats that were lost two weeks ago.

Steve, if you don't like what's here, seek happiness elsewhere.

Great point, Feisty

That got me wondering why would that be since all I've heard over the last year from the MSM is how it's ONLY the Republicans & the Tea Party who are the 'passionate voter' this election cycle.

It's the angry white male who wants to take their country back to the days of desperate housewives!

As usual a takes a sensible person to breakdown Morning JOE; only because "Mama Grizzlies" don't count. I've yet to see a bear vote.

This just in from the NYT.

America we are being bought and sold by Big Business and the “Special Interest Groups”, make no bones about it.

“Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations”.

“Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities”.

“And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s election process”.

Do we become a third world country, controlled by the wealthy, with a shrinking middle class and a large pool of poor people? Or do we seek solutions to our many domestic problems?

That's it in a nutshell, Ron. You put it perfectly. You should be a paid pundit!

Good morning all. To answer your question Ron, no the MSM will not stop reporting sound bites and spin, that's what their told to do by the republicans money machine. The money machine is the ones giving them the sound bites and spin in the first place. They bribe them with advertising money period.

Steve,

I am not the United States Government. I don't have to grant you freedom of speech.

D Noid,

And i dont ask your permission,, I dont need it... But obviously you think i should.. Just saying..

Yawn..................................

What a great way to end this week, terrific and thoughtful posts. It seems each day, dissecting a new demographic gets the media excited.

If 2010 belongs to republicans which is possible, they better be prepared to Govern because the American people will not accept anything else. They better create all those jobs they claim they know how to create, WE will not accept anything else.

Finally, on NBC's Nightly News last night--a report on the secret money being funneled by big business to the US Chamber and being spent on campaign attack ads. I say finally because there was a time when this type of story would have hit the MSM airways within a day, if not within hours of the first ThinkProgress report.

Yes! Break EVERYTHING down to ethnicity. That way the Dems know whose azz to kiss at election time. Who to promise what to etc...How to continue to foster resentment and division among Ameiricans by seeing every citizen , not as an individual, but as part of a particular grievance group. Great idea form the party of "hope and change."

Thanks Amy & Bev... being a red head you don't get much whiter than me! ;0)

I'm going on record that with less than two weeks before what is no doubt the MOST important election in my lifetime...

I don't give a rat's a@@ about Juan Williams (especially since he landed a 7 figure gig over at the fair & balanced news station that so far has donated 2.5 million dollars to the Republican Party)!

What I CARE about is anonymous donations BUYING American elections!

So to Steve and the rest... you all worry about what's at the top of your list of priorities and I'll stick to mine!

PS: The phony poutrage from Mr. Lou (I hire illegals) Dobb's this morning almost cost me my breakfast!

I see our resident "sleepy republican" is back doing what republicans do best, "taking a nap" while the rest of us are trying to save this country.

Now there is a plan for you.

Republicans will be in charge of the new congress!

My hope is they will also take charge. Do not do as before and try to share power in a politically correct bi-partisan way. To share power is to dilute power.

They must live with the rule if democrats can live with it, it is wrong!

...and if your sole purpose is to come in here, Steve-o, and whine and piss and moan about the content other posters add to this blog you'd be better served not reading.

Have a nice day.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to speak to the Juan Williams firing, Steve. There is not free speech issue here. Juan is free to say whatever he wishes, and did. Nowhere in the Consitution does it say that he's entitled to a microphone and millions of listeners. The responsibility of a Journalist is to keep his or her opinions out of the public eye and to dispassionately report both sides of every issue. Juan refused to do so and had been repeatedly warned by his employer that he was putting his job in jeopardy. He refused to comply with the requirements of his position and was terminated as a result.

Now he's gotten a big increase in pay to work at a place where information and opinion are freely intermixed in a confusing and misleading imitation of journalism. I don't think you can make a case that he's been harmed in any way.

None of which really changes the facts that this election represents the aging, politically Conservative oligarchs throwing vast sums of money into a last gasp attempt to mobilize people who are upset about a bad economy into enshrining undemocratic, anti-egalitarian, unamerican principles into law before they die. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1

Hey.. Thanks for acknowledging me to day Feisty..

yes i will stick to what is on my mind. and what my prioritys are.. all the while Laughing,

Did i say Yawn yet this morning...............

Yea, those poor Democrats, they're hardly getting ANY campaign contributions. Oh, wait. Yes, they are.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/industries.php

And would you look at THAT! Three of the top five recipients from Wall Street - including #1 and #2? Democrats!!!

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=F07

What you people just can't stand is that the playing field is truly level now, and Republicans aren't going to get outspent due to unions, lawyers and the Soros' of the world having a corner on the market.

Oh, and didja hear? England is slashing it's nanny tit state by 19%. France is trying to raise the retirement age by TWO years, and the pathetic government dependents are freaking out. Is this REALLY what you people want for this country? Do you WANT everyone in this country dependent upon a government handout for their existance, taken per force from the productive members of society to such an extreme that the productive members simply STOP producing? Really?

Amy:

Thanks for the compliment. I don't know if one can be an amateur pundit. I doubt that I will ever get paid for my thougts. But it sure is fun talking to the thousands who read First Thoughts.

Thanks Steve for your brilliant impute each day. So full of in site and wisdom. Ever thought about adding something constructive to the conversation? Not the same old negativism every day. You sound sleepy every day (YAWN). Why not go back to bed until you wake up with some fresh ideas

Tom,

I added my Thoughtfull insight 2 weeks ago when the Liberals on this pages started talking about it.. after 2 weeks of exactly the same thoughts from liberals.. there is really nothing left to say.. but.

YAWN............................................................................................

Again, some think it was all well under Bush, while we were on the brink of another great depression. To say he was honest is far from the truth. He and his VP lied and started an unprovoked war that murdered thousands of innocent people. Then you guys spew all of this hate talk that FOX News, Palin, Beck and others associates come up with, which is policy play book brand name calling.

The right has been misinformed, while they are not being given any real tangible ideas from their base of what they would do to improve our country, if the far right gained control of our government. There stance is based on intolerance and in many cases a hate brought of by the far right extremist, with no plans to run the country once they get elected. Their voters are so filled with lie-fed hatred they don’t demand a candidate that has a plan to solve our countries problems.

I have yet to hear of any plan that the republican-tea party has for solving the problems. Oh you will hear cut spending and take the country back. But, there is no plan, just general talk, “Stop Obama.”

But, in reality your main funders are fighting to keep big corporations interest ahead of the American People.

It’s like you think your people can come to Washington and not work with the Democrats and the President and just say we are going to block you and not fund anything and create even more of a stale mate, while the country slides even more.

That’s not the way Ronald Reagan would have handled things. I think today, he would have been ashamed of events going on with the far right extremist, who do nothing but spread their hate, intolerance and in many cases racism.

Steve has a pretty valid point. "First Read" vines are filled with nothing but rants against anything that's NOT liberal left wing, other left-wing liberals patting them on the back for a particularily good smear of anything that disagrees with liberalism (as it's sadly become defined) and personal attacks against anyone who has the nerve to disagree.

The attacks are rarely fact based, and display an enormous and disturbing lack of civility on the part of the liberal posters.

In other words, it's usually not worth attempting to have a civilzed discussion with anyone on the First Read vines, because most of them are simply incapable of anything but talking points, dogma and smears - all in the name of tolerance, of course.

I don't blame Steve for not bothering, I rarely do either.

I added my Thoughtfull insight 2 weeks ago when the Liberals on this pages started talking about it.. after 2 weeks of exactly the same thoughts from liberals.. there is really nothing left to say.. but.

YAWN............................................................................................

2 weeks of reading the same thoughts. Whose fault is that...us for posting or you for reading?

It seems to me the Party of Personal Responsibility should know the answer.

You know Steve,

If I were you I'd be worried about that yawning problem, have you considered having it check by your doctor?. When one is always that tired, you miss out on a lot and are not really on your game. Pity.

Bev, Ron, Feisty, Amy, Vet, Gingerbread - good day to you all.

This story's headline caught my attention. It addresses a point also raised here recently, that the biggest problem with the next Congress will be deadlock. And, that the consequence of that deadlock may be increased and more ferocious voter anger in the future. That certainly has been the case in California since the 1980's, where the legislature has been split almost evenly, and within both parties (but most particularly the Republicans) further ideological differences made getting anything done an excruciating trial.

We will absolutely see that in the next Congress. In addition, it seems highly unlikely that some voters will get their wishes - there will not be enough votes to roll back Health Insurance Reform, or to kill some of its major provisions, nor to shut down major departments of the government as some so earnestly desire. But there also may not be enough votes to pass sensible Federal budgets, and efforts to at least render many Federal departments helpless by refusing appropriations and authorizations for them have already been promised.

The end result will be a Congress that acts much as it did under Newt Gingrich, following the "train wreck theory of government."

In the short term, I also worry about some of the Tea Party followers, mainly White supremacists and anti-government militia members, whose rage will be searing when some of their candidates do not win election. MSNBC television recently reported on the NAACP's new study showing how these groups use the Tea Party movement to spread their gospel of hatred - which we have all encountered here. That garbage about "the Second Amendment solution" may be a terrifying reality after the election, in some places. What gross irresponsibility for Tea Party spokespersons and candidates to make such suggestions.

Although I cherish a thought that these types of antics could, and perhaps should, ultimately destroy the Republican Party, at the same time I wonder whether that's really such a good result. The disaffected have to have someplace to go. And I certainly don't want them in my neighborhood.

Y'all could always just cut to the chase - hunt Steve down and run him over with a bread truck. 8D

...although perhaps I've spent way too much time lately re-playing GTA IV.

OH.. no i take Responsiblity for my Actions.. Its my own Choice to be here..

If you look hard enough i am sure you can find some Republican to blame for your being here... Just saying.

Yawn.............................................................

Thanks, danoid, for the case in point: no facts, nothing worth reading, just veiled insults.

Prag....more fear, doom, and gloom. You should be on Steele's marketing team cause the news from Europe while true is not the full story. The countries might be adjusting the programs, but they are not abandoning them.

Sorry, but I still haven't seen the Republicans demonstrate any fiscal responsibility from their last tenure from 2003-2007; nor have I witnessed a willingness to work on major issues facing this country. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was a bandaid with a gaping hole, massive jobs were lost between December 2007 and January 2009, the Republicans hosted TWO recessions, March 2001-November 2001; followed by December 2007 through December 2009. No...I will not give the keys back ... the cost to insure the country against reckless Republicans is being paid with the highest jobless rate we've seen in decades, a massive recovery bill to keep the engine running, and problems to be solved. Thank goodness the Democrats are willing to solve problems. The solutions may not be perfect - but we are on track.

Pragmatic to a fault:

Where have you been? Progressive Countries are leading the world in individual wealth, healthcare, and education.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/16/best-countries-in-the-world.html

Where your GOP policies of welfare for big business and the wealthy tends to mimic China's wealth gaps.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39546204/ns/business-world_business/

There is also a BIG difference in the donations coming into the DNC are not annonymous, as you even demonstrated in your post.

How much money is pouring into the GOP through Paper organizations with hidden agenda from the likes of Wall Street? Oil? Haliburton? Banks? Terrorist Militias?

Trickle down economics have never worked.

SO if your so called "productive members" were to stop producing they would be merely be replaced. STILL not sure why you say they would quit producing, as they are paying the lowest taxes they have in decades, and letting the tax cuts expire and return to the previous normal tax rates really is not a significant impact on their wealth as a whole.

BTW everyone depends on the government for their existance. You on a Navy? A Army? You got folks out inspecting the food your family eats?

The GOP is a dying party owned by BIG Business and elected by Social Conservatives.

This well may be the GOP's last hurrah, you better enjoy it!!!

Perhaps the Party that rises from its ashes will be a fiscal conservative party and leave the social conservative crap behind.

DNV,

Now some of the things that you say about what Obama has done is true. But you can take that TARP thing out. You and I both know that was a Bush agenda thing, Obama wasn't president when it passed. Although they did have to take back the checks and the 8%, but if the President wants the blame the Bush administration for everything wrong in this country, I will not allow him to take credit for something he did not do.

Just as yesterday and the jobs that were completed in the wind/solar energy sector under the Bush administration he is trying to take credit for. Another 50K jobs he had nothing to do with.

He did ram health care through and something that they call financial reform, but according to all of you--CEO's are still making millions, so where is the real reform.

I am glad the war in Iraq is over, especially if it saves American lives. I will give the man credit for that. I hope soon that all American troops are home.

I'd really like to know when equal pay started--I thought that women still made 80% of what a man makes, that all jobs have a different pay scale, but if there is equal pay, then I should be making what a CEO makes:)

And I do think that those tax cuts you are talking about expire on Dec 31, 2010.

And for saving jobs, you did take a little more than what the CBO said that the stimulus saved--but of course they said it saved anywhere from 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. I would expect those backing the stimulus to quote the high side, but over the high side? Then again, you should expect me to take the low side, 1.4. So somewhere in the middle is probably where it is at. But we do have to remove those 50K jobs that were saved prior to the Obama administration.

And lets not forget that government jobs make twice the median salary of private sector jobs. And it is the tax payers that pay for those positions. Should the taxpayers ask for a salary deduction for public employees? I mean to save the deficit spending?

Steve introduces a new conundrum:

Are all righties childish dunderheads, or are all childish dunderheads righties?

I guess he does prove, though, that you can drink and drink and drink.....and STILL get drunk!

No matter what the outcome of 2 Nov.,There will still be a stalemate in Washington.BOTH parties continue with ; "your guy's a bigger crook than me" rants, and;" this is what we're gonna do if we're elected", crap....If these people all have so many great ideas for the FUTURE after they're elected, why haven't they put the country BEFORE the damn party and have already done , or at least proposed what they say they're going to do???? If you've been in office 28 years, or 45 years,or 12 years ......you can't rest on your 'accomplishments'...you HAVE NONE. It's NOT democratland, or republicanland ,it's still America.Time for all the party-serving and self-serving politicians to get to work and stop fighting over who's the bigger crook. We have a Leader who may have only visited the white house once or twice since he was inaugurated. RUN the country.SOLVE the problems we were told you would. With a congress full of yes-men from the same party, Things should have gotten done.If a certain repubs claim to fame is a boatload of years in office,and nothing to show for it....time to retire....term limits....FOR ALL..neither side has the edge on ethics violations.And if all the cronies of BOTH parties are actually guilty of what they are accused of ,PUT THEM IN JAIL...........The same standards of law should apply to them as us.............US. Army,Disabled Veteran.

Drive by: Bread trucks. You know it would be fun. >_>

Job1

I am gonna have to agree with you on something, all of these radio and tv pundits complain and spew their own facts, but none rarely provide solutions, or programs that will really help the american people.

I also see that candidates are the same way, real solutions can be tied down, they can be used to destroy a campaign, because both sides are able to find a person who can take down the numbers and ruin an idea. And I don't care which side of the aisle you are on.

I am more embarrassed that most of us allow this to happen, because we are the ones that vote, and keep voting in knuckle heads.

I am so glad to be the Topic of Disscussion here today instead of the drivel you liberals usually Spew..

Thanks..

Did i say Yawn yet?

Saving the country from a major depression TARP worked and returned an 8% profit so far, and the Stimulus (ARRA) has saved 3.5 Million Jobs and created another 600,000+ new private sector jobs.

TARP was executed under the Bush Administration. Nice try US Navy Retired or should I say just "Tired"! I suppose next you will convince us that the Doolittle Tokyo Raid preceded Pearl Harbor!

The formula used buy this administration is a BS formula to determine jobs saved. Economic Analysts have deemed it as Hocus Pocus! It is such BS that the Administration won't even release to the public how they derive that number. In Geometry ( I assume you took that class a a kid - maybe I'm reaching) we used to call it PROOFING. So where is the PROOF! Remember Obama said he would have an OPEN Administration. I suppose those coffee meetings at the Starbucks across the street from the White House so visitors to the President don't have to be recorded historically is PROOF of that, eh!

Go back to slept "TIRED"!

We're just joshing you, Steve. It's kind of like being back in elementary school, trying to con the retarded kids into eating hornets.

ED,

If you were on NPR you'd get fired for being politically incorrect. We don't use "Retarded" anymore, it is mentally handicapped, and besides, wouldn't eating hornets be cruel and unusual punishment.

We just encouraged them to grab the good looking girls on the rear end:)

E.D.

So then you admit to being a bully.............

John A

Excellent thoughts! I expect, yes expect deadlock in the next Congress. It is troubling when there is so much that needs to be done. With a Congress that may be evenly matched between Republicans and Democrats, there will be no roll back of healthcare, or financial reform.

In my district a Tea Party candidate is saying he will repeal Obamacare. That simply will not happen and I wonder how the Tea Party will respond to the government stuck in neutral. It will be something to talk about in the months to come.

@BB: Yeah, you know, them crucifying Juan Williams like that without a shadow of a doubt the single most hypocritical thing I've seen in recent memory. Nothing in Williams' comments should've earned his termination. He even stipulated that we needed someone like Bush to remind us all that this isn't a war against Islam but against extremism and to not conflate the issue.

So much for the jurisprudence of NPR. They've painted themselves in the same colors as FOX.

@Steve-O (and pretty much everyone else wondering about the retarded hornet post): I admit to directing meaningless, nonsensical and made-up-on-the-fly comments to you precisely because you absolutely refuse to communicate your ideas or engage in civil debate.

Remember, Steve. I don't hate you because you're a conservative; I hate you because you're stupid.

kpokeefe, it seems fair that Democrats should be able to take credit for the profit returned by TARP. After all, Democrats had to return the votes to get it passed in Congress, and the US Chamber of Commerce is using huge amounts of anyonymous donations to attach Democrats who voted for the program.

It just shows how partisan the CoC really is. The financial community went hat in hand and admitted that their freewheeling brand of Capitalism was about to bring down the entire world economy. Then the business world repays the Democratic Party for doing the right thing by targeting them for extinction.

Seems to me the abandonment of the Democratic Party by big business interests like the CoC leaves them free to turn Trust Buster and actually deal with "too big to fail", sensible regulation, and the other things that Conservatives stand against.

BigBear

Bush did get the TARP passed and he deserves credit for that, absolutely and President Obama deserves credit because it was under his management that the TARP generated the 8% profit. Both get a gold star agreed?

Steve introduces a new conundrum:

Are all righties childish dunderheads, or are all childish dunderheads righties?

I guess he does prove, though, that you can drink and drink and drink.....and STILL get drunk!

I believe the word you are looking for is "tautology".

DNV-

Can I have a purple star, those were my school colors in JH, HS, College:)

How about discussing ways to reform SS? In for a little discussion?

Da Noid,

That is the problem with all you left wingers and right wingers, you want to use all these big words that average americans have to look up:)

So we are saying that Steve is:

Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid.

and I thought you all didn't like the guy?

E.D.

I got Big Shoulders.. Please Enlighten us more to your Whimsical one liners.. You see I dont care what you say about me because i know they are not true.. Attack me all you wish. My self-esteem is high enough to have the confidence to know that it doesn't matter what anyone calls me. I can stand up to it. . for years Democrats have been telling me a NON-White person that i need to depend on them because they have my best Interest in mind..

I understood when i was 15 years old. (i am now nearly 50) that i could depend on myself to get what i needed in life without depending on the Democrats to provide for me. Democrats will continue to keep Minorities in Financial Slavery all for the vote.. They promise them everything and provide them nothing but more promices....

So please.. continue .. As i will.. Jump on board.. i got big shoulders..

Yawn..................................

Why is it that some of you who complain about this board everyday (and are less the civil yourselves) keep coming back?

Most of us provide facts or links where you can go and read the appropriate data yourself, but you guys ignore them anyway and go off on a tangent somewhere else.

And talk about rants? Go figure.

@Steve: If you actually paid any bloody attention to my posts you'd know by now that I am by-and-large opposed to the fiscal policies of the left. You'd know I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility, personal ethic and a big believer in the notion that using government as a crutch is inherently bad. You'd know I have no actual malice for anyone who disagrees with me and argues with my views provided they can offer spirited and honest debate.

You clearly have an opinion and a reason for where you stand - intelligently vocalize those reasons in opposition to those you don't agree with or else expect to be taken as a half-wit.

Hey Everyone,

Do you all not realize that it is Friday? We are suppose to have fun on Friday's. I mean even the Louis Friday the 13th thing is laughable.

So "lighten up Francis":)

I got the reference, BB. XD

...so uh. When do I get my armored assault RV?

Nice try, BigBear, but my response was to "drive-by-observer"...

Are all righties childish dunderheads, or are all childish dunderheads righties?

It is a tautology...and, no, I don't like Steve-a-rino.

'kay. So much for appealing to non-extant higher ideals.

In the spirit of being allowed the privilege to do what I please, you're still a moron, Steve. Nevermind your age and skin tone; I'd still gladly wing you with a Winnebago.

...especially if it had wings.

ED,

Try www.govliquidations.com , they have everything for the "drive by" and I am sure they have an armored assault RV somewhere in there. They do have lots of toys:)

Congrats. You're my new hero. ;_;

Da Noid,

So "Drive by observer" is: "universal unconditioned truth, always valid."

So the rest of us don't have to read any other post but his. Wow that helps me out, and I have spent so much time corresponding with DNV, ED, and Nashville Fan, even a little John A thrown in there.

But now I know where to turn for "unconditional truth", who need rush, keith, chris, or sean:)

Ed....

if you think Higher Ideals are callin people names and Threatening them with Violent attack by hitting them with an automobile so be it.. I for one will just say i wish with out the Verbal assualt or Threatend Physical assault..

But i understand you need that type of hyperboll to give you pleasure in your life..

Hmmm i wonder if the Moderators are watching your Threats of physical assault on me..

@Steve: Yawwwwwwwwwwwwn..................

...do you see what I did there? How does the irony taste? I also trust the moderators to be aware of the fact that all I say I say in jest. :p

I take your threats of phyical harm to me serious. thats the type of person you are and it has been reported...

@Steve: Yawwwwwwwwwwwwn..................

...do you see what I did there? How does the irony taste? I also trust the moderators to be aware of the fact that all I say I say in jest. :p

Thank you, BigBear, for proving a point.

Why do I use "big words"? It's so I can watch folks like you absolutely fall all over yourselves.

Regarding Republicans and the post: "Do not do as before and try to share power in a politically correct bi-partisan way. To share power is to dilute power."

That was a good laugh. If the lock-in-step Republicans ever compromised it was a long time ago.

I heard a conservative say the Dems had a majority and could have passed what ever they wanted. I was confused to hear this since I thought the Dems were jamming everything down everyone's throats--which way is it?

Any-who, I tried to explain to this conservative that Dems allow descent and debate and voting ones conscience without members fearing punishment the way they do in the GOP Borg. And of course, the Dems gave up way too much in an attempt to get Republican cooperation.

In the meantime Republicans set records for filibusters, blocks and holds, even against their own legislation, and this guy posts how Republicans need to stop being bi-partisan? LOL!

Is it resistance or persistence that's most futile?

Hey BB: Da Noid's got you. You should try looking up the use of the term 'tautology' as a rhetorical device; not the Webster dictionary definition.

kpokeefe:

It is true that President Bush did sign the TARP Bill. It is also true that the bill was implemented and administered by the President Obama Administration that yielded the 8% profit. For the third time now, I have acknowledged both of them.

President Bush gets the credit for delivering the Bill and President Obama gets credit for implementing the bill and making sure we got our money back.

Steve as irritating, redundant & factually challenged as I find you to be...

I do agree that physical threats have NO PLACE on this board!

It was only last week that dangerfield was threatening to knock someones teeth out!

It's not funny! PERIOD!!!

kpokeefe, it seems fair that Democrats should be able to take credit for the profit returned by TARP

You obviously don't understand what credit defaults are and how TARP worked to even make that statement. Everyone is an expert I guess until they have to put their own money where there mouth is!

You know, when I was a kid (5 years old) my Grandmother bought and gave me three gold coins. I think she paid $50 per one ounce coin. Today those coins are worth $1300 a piece. I guess I made a good investment to use your logic!

Thin skin much, Feisty? Do you really think anyone on this blog is bored enough to carry an online squabble over into meat-space?

Trust me - I've been Interneting for over a decade now; the key when mucking about in cyberspace is to never take anything too seriously. Remember, Feisty: arguing online is like participating in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

...massive amounts of butt-hurt, on the other hand (especially when sourced in the middle-aged!), is especially hilarious~

See Feisty,

We do agree on something,,, May it be only one thing..............

Ms. fiesty, are you a racial bigot? I ask, for you denagrade white men in your post. I happen to be a man of color, white, and I take offense with your comment, but I should expect it, for you continued disrespect for any other opinion that disagrees with yours constitues such demonizing.

DBO: I've come to think of Steve as First Read's resident mosquito...

No picnic is complete without a little pr!ck!

Now here is another negative comment to backup my previous statement regarding your conduct. What's next - the priceless tag?

As for Juan Williams, I find him to be an informative liberal, who I respect. I may not always agree with him, but I do value his judgement and I find it necessary to view the liberal point. and, he makes his comments in a respectable view, without the petty, narrow-minded comments you frequent.

I find it unfortunate that a simple statement made by Juan can cause the NPR to terminate his agreement while others have used more imflamatory statements in similar situation. Good for FOX to offer him a $2M contract to continue to issue the liberal cause on this fair-and-balanced network.

Fiesty, it is time to tone down the racist comments and post with a sense of humility to others. But it won't happen, for you will continue to use schoolhouse humor, finding it OK while continuing to cry when such comments are used against you.

Awww. How cute. I'm seriously getting doe-eyed over here. ;3

safecracker,

There's an ignore author button USE IT!

ED & Da Noid,

I saw both definitions when I looked up the word, but thought on this board, using the logical definition would but us more in line with the rest of the Vulcans on here.

I am thankful for getting a new word for the day though. You are never to old to learn.

Like on Seinfeld the other night, they were looking for a 3-letter word that meant "candy"--da-"PEZ" what the whole show was about.

And remember, it is Friday, so we need to have some fun around here. Not just verbal jousting.

@safecracker-1205811: Elsewhere on this article another poster pointed out that Juan Williams stating his opinion in the way he did was a violation of NPR's company policy - that in order to maintain his integrity as an unbiased reporter of the news, Juan had to abide by rules that required him to keep his opinions out of the public eye.

Now, on a very basic, gut-reaction level that strikes me as wrong. I don't think opinion should be abridged (chided, sneered or laughed at, sure!) or censored, but at the same time I can understand where NPR is coming from. If an organization looks to paint itself as one of non-partisan objectivity, then it wasn't a good idea on Juan's behalf to continuously appear on various programs making his sentiments known. Supposedly he'd been reprimanded before on more than one occassion.

It's a tough pill for me to swallow, tho'. I don't know who's actions are more greivous - Juan's or his former employer's.

@BB: Vulcans, eh? I wonder when pon farr is due to hit First Read...

whack jobs like you are the real reason the USA is in trouble.

It's not about Race or Sex, It's about rights and wrongs.

You are way off the deep end sister.

BigBear,

Thanks for the response.

We have some agreement. I do not agree with the notion that the health care was rammed down anybody's throat. Do I beleive the bill perfect, no way, but it is a start in the right direction. It did pass the Senate with a majority. One could make an equal arguement that when you have a bill that has 59 Yes votes and only 41 No votes and it fails because it did not get 60 (stupid rule) that the minority is jamming their agenda down the majorities throat. Just saying.

I agree with you 100% on the wars. I did not like either one of them period and was against them both. As you, I want our people back home safely and we can then use those dollars that we are not spending on the war right here in the United States to move the economy forward and create jobs.

True, tax cuts end soon unless congress does something. I am for letting the cuts expire on families who make over $250,000 to the Clinton Rates and keep the taxcuts for those families making less than $250,000 at the President Bush Rates.

As far as the CBO report of 1.4 - 3.3 Million Jobs asved I do not have a problem with using the average like you said. That would give President Obama credit for about 2.2 Million plus the 600,000 new jobs. I think the 600K will still be valid since that was last months numbers andwe have added more since then and then subtract out the 50K you said.

On Social Security, I beleive that it is solvent until 2039 at 100% of benefits. Most economists (republican and democrat) including CBO etc say that. Does that mean we do not look at Social Security to make sure that it stays viable, absolutely not. We need to look at it. I think the fastest way to add years to it is by increasing the payroll ceiling from $106,500.00 currently to a higher number. I am not a big fan of privatizing Social Security, nor do I think rasing the retirement age is a good idea unless they can make some kind of exception for hard labor workers that cannot work to 70 because ofthe physical demands of their job. But I am open to any reasonable opinion.

Mr Tired,

You obviously don't understand that once the bill was signed it became LAW. Remember on Saturday mornings the School House Rock clip, Mr Bill. It goes like this:

I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Obama didn't have a choice to implement. The DAMN Bill was signed and became LAW!

You know for somebody that shoots off on this forum as some kind of expert you really demonstrate that you have no cognitive ability to process what happens and who is responsible. For example, I have read your posts on the housing crisis which you blamed on the Bush Administration. Well, Mr Tired, the housing crisis began in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration with the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the agreement from the Congress to Appropriate $2.4 trillion in low or NO COST loans for minorities and low wage earners. And, who was it appropriated through? FANNIE AND FREDDIE with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank the major players responsible.

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-17.html

Notice the date of the Article, Mr Tired! Bush was the Governor of Texas!

On this one scroll down until you see the table...Notice the percentage differential between the races in NEW HOME OWNERSHIP over the period in question. The standard deviation is more twice that of the mean! You don't understand what that means...It means RISK, RISK, and more RISK!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States

So stop your BS! Those of us, like myself, that were working within financial sector knew and screamed to high heaven that this was a government created fiasco! Now they, the government, want you to believe in them and listen when they tell you that THEY are going to clean it up! ROLL OVER AND GO BACK TO SLEEP, MR TIRED!

Let's take a look at the results the last two times one party controlled everything.

In the 4 years that the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House (2003-2007), the economy grew by 25.9% (6.5%/yr) and almost 8 million jobs were added (2 million jobs/yr. average).

In the last 4 years under a Democratic Congress, the economy has barely grown, and over 4 million jobs have been lost.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

I suppose steve is suffering from "attention deficit'. He is ignored by everyone else in his life and comes here to try and get some(attention). Poor guy, we should all mention his name at the beginning of each post, to help him out. We have certainly made his day today.

Steve-505729

I am so glad to be the Topic of Disscussion here today instead of the drivel you liberals usually Spew..

Big Bear:

Again I ask you to not take ANY "fact" that you hear at face value. It is NOT true that government employees make twice as much as their private sector counterparts:

New study finds public workers earn less than private sector workers, even factoring in benefits

September 16, 2010

With unemployment in the region lingering at record levels, and job security a wistful memory for many, it’s easy to look for scapegoats. Thus a familiar refrain--government workers are overpaid, and our tax dollars are going towards outsized benefit and salary packages--has come back again. But as with most scapegoating, there’s not much truth to the accusation: the reality is just the opposite. Once age and education are factored in, state and local workers actually earn less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts.

http://www.physorg.com/news203874436.html

STEVE, Steve, sTEVE, StEVE, STeVE, STEvE, STEVe. Do you need more?

The checks and balances within the American government has NEVER been in a two, three or ten party system ... it has always been in the 3 separate segments of our government: the Executive branch (the president and his staff), The Legislative branch (Congress) and the Judicial branch (the Supreme Court). Our government was created in such a manner as to ensure that each branch keeps the other two branches "honest" by mandating that each branch being answerable to the other two branches. There were several political affiliations ... none of which exists today. Even the ones that sound "familiar" ARENT and have flipped names between eachother too many times. The Whigs are gone, The Federalists attempted to take over the moderate Republicans (when the Republicans became 4 different, succint, separate extremist groups). Even Lincoln changed from Republican to Federalist and then later back to a revamped Republican (and that group is nbow what are called Democrats). The Democrats of the Southern bible belt are now what we call Republicans.

Parties are NOT what provides America the "checks and balances", the three specific, detailed branches of our government are solely responsible for those "checks and balances".

Political parties where their members have more alliegence to the party than the American populace ARE NOT AMERICANS, but opportunists seeking power. Any politician whose alliegence to America runs secondary to his party DOESNT belong in any office representing Americans.

Today, political parties do not serve to enhance or better America, but merely prevent America from moving forward in a positive, UNITED way as America was intended to progress. The negativity holds back America and is eating away at her core. Instead of adult debate and honorable resolution, our parties have disolves to 2 yr old tantrum throwers who throw hissy fits when they dont get their way (i.e. The Party of No currently attempting to destroy America and all she stands for just to "prove" a president they dont like wrong instead of assisting America in recovering)

Big Bear:

It is true that TARP (and the need to create in the first place) was requested and created by the Bush Adminstration.

However, it is false to state that the Obama Adminstration should get no credit for its success. There were several changes to and decisions about the TARP program under the Obama Administration, not to mention the fact that Senator Obama lobbied for the passage of the bill and voted for the bill.

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It is the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent final net estimate of the cost, as of October 5, 2010, will be close to $30 billion, including expected returns from interest in AIG.^[1] This is significantly less than the taxpayers' cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. The cost of that crisis amounted to 3.2% of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the current crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1% . . .

On January 21, 2009, the Treasury announced new regulations regarding disclosure and mitigation of conflicts of interest in its TARP contracting.

On February 5, 2009, the Senate approved changes to the TARP that prohibit firms receiving TARP funds from paying bonuses to their 25 highest-paid employees. The amendment was proposed by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut as an amendment to the $900 billion economic stimulus act yet to be passed.

On February 10, 2009, the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner outlined his plan to use the $300 billion or so remaining in the TARP funds. He intended to use $50 billion for foreclosure mitigation and use the rest to help fund private investors to buy toxic assets from banks...

On March 23, 2009, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced a Public-Private Investment Program (P-PIP) to buy toxic assets from banks' balance sheets. . .

^{On April 19, the Obama administration outlined the conversion of Banks Bailouts to Equity Share}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

PragmaticToAFault "Steve has a pretty valid point. "First Read" vines are filled with nothing but rants against anything that's NOT liberal left wing"

Yes, they are merely 'preaching to the choir'. When the election results are posted in less than 2 weeks, they will say;

"How could this happen - almost everyone agrees with me?"

While the Democrats are likely to lose almost half of their Senate seats up for election this year, they will probably still control the Senate - barely.

The election in 2012 is another matter, because 23 Democratic Senate seats (incl 2 ind) are up for election in vs only 11 Republican seats.

In 2014, a similar scenario unfolds, where 17 Democratic seats are up for election, vs only 12 for Republicans.

The liberals must be awfully discouraged, since their 'once in a lifetime' control of Congress, including a filibuster proof Senate, accomplished virtually nothing - except a huge amount of debt for our children and grandchildren to pay.

Let's take a look at the results the last two times one party controlled everything.

In the 4 years that the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House (2003-2007), the economy grew by 25.9% (6.5%/yr) and almost 8 million jobs were added (2 million jobs/yr. average).

In the last 4 years under a Democratic Congress, the economy has barely grown, and over 4 million jobs have been lost.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

A perfect example of "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc"...a faulty premise in logic that merely states that because Event B took place after Event A, one can assume that Event A caused Event B.

It's never that simple. It would be like me trying to argue that Steve is acting like a chode on this blog today because I got out of bed.

Exodite Dragon,

I read the statement by NPR regarding the firing of Mr. Williams, and I also read several comments by other reporters/analysts/commentators on this station, and Juan's comments/opinions were not as offensive as those of other people working for the station. I also took issue with the comments of the President of NPR who outlined the decision, further adding insults about Juan and his psychologist, which was also demeaning. She apologized the next day, but her attitude was such that the apology was issued dut to a possible legal situation.

I just looked at the situation as a liberal media outlet, discharging a liberal commentator to limit his comments on a conservative outlet.

As I previously stated, I enjoy listening to Juan, to gain insight into his comments. I may not always agree with him, but he does offer interesting points of view. And, he arrives at his conclusions without negative name-calling, as Fiesty always includes. I believe it is important to search for all views on a subject, and then make an intelligent conculusion based on your personal values.

Juan and FOX always have a good banter, but an honest one. It's a shame that NPR appears to want to limit discourse by only having a liberal slant to their opinions.

I agree with you that I question Juan's right to speak his thoughts. In fact, he did preface his thoughts prior to speaking, actually outlining the rights of the Muslims to be on the flight in question.

A bad day for NPR. could Juan sue and win - yes, but he's too upfront for that. NPR lost a valuable resource, and Fox is lucky to have him on board.

DNV,

Glad to see some SS talk on here. It is time for some changes, I personally know that it is never going away, but it would sure help to make it a plausible idea.

Here's one:

Why not take a date, say January 1, 1995. Everyone born prior to that date is on the old system that we have. One of the things for this is we are going to have to take part of our nation gas sales tax and put .02 cents per gallon towards SS in its old form.

But everyone born after January 1, 1995 would go to a new form of SS. What you and your employer pay in, plus 3% annual interest would be all that you have at the end of your working days.

6.5% from you pay

6.5% from employers

3% annually

Whatever you put in, is what you get out.

Using today's median income of just under $37K (I used 37K)

after 30 years of work--using the above formula, a person would have $235,702 saved, so if retiring at 65, they would have started working at 35 years of age.

after 40 years of work--using the above formula, a person would have $373,560 saved, starting work at 25 years of age

after 50 years of work--using the above formula, a person would have $558,829 saved, starting work at 15 years of age.

But these numbers are without increases in earnings. And we all know that we usually start with smaller salaries and build up to larger ones.

And anyone entering the US and becoming a legal citizen would have to go on the new plan.

Let's see where this leads us?

Da Noid

I merely stated some facts. People can draw their own conclusion.

Of course, some people will say "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up".

@safecracker-1205811:

You've got no argument from me on any of that.

BigBear62

Your proposed 'solution' to Social Security is basically what we have right now.

Contributions by employer and employee are currently 12.4%, and the "Trust Funds' for each individual earns interest at about 3%, so what you propose is what we already have in place.

The big difference is that many people work and make contributions for 30 or 40 years and then die before collecting any benefits, and the government 'confiscates' the money in their Trust Account, leaving nothing for their heirs.

It's far worse than that, because the government took those REAL contributions that employers and employees paid in and spent it on other things (like government worker's pensions, welfare programs, etc.), leaving nothing but IOUs for our children and grandchildren to repay.

Da Noid -- Holy cow, how can you expect a conservative to understand formal logic when they can't even use common sense?

I merely stated some facts. People can draw their own conclusion.

Riiiiight!!!

Nashville,

Glad to see you here today. But you must not have read the posts between DNV and myself, We both conceded that Bush got the bill passed through congress, while Obama administrated much of it and got the 8% profit back. Now we are just waiting on our dividend checks.

As for the private/public sector jobs. Maybe I have been a little vague, which I can admit is my fault, I am referring to federal government jobs. Jobs that can have pay cuts and help close the deficit gap.

here is an article that goes way overboard on what federal employees get. But the average federal employee salary is basically 79K, compared to the median private sector job of 37K.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75647

Thanks for allowing me to explain my position, of course, those Democrats out in Bell, California, they would never take more than deserved would they:) Oops, they have no party affiliation in Bell, California, that is strange, but I am gonna throw out that they were backed by more democrats than republicans because most of the area is a democratic stronghold in California. JMO on that one.

Roy,

That is not what we have now. It is what we should have, because we have a workers today pay for workers tomorrow. It is not set aside in an account/social security # and left there only for you to use. The money people pay today, pays the SS of those already retired.

EX: I know that my father worked long and hard, but never made or put into social security what he is getting out. At the average of about $1100 per person on SS, there is know way that those people paid in over 110,000K over the years that they worked. The social security rate was not always 6.2% for my father. It was lower. In fact, 6.2% was not in effect until 1990.

http://www.ssa.gov/

So don't try and say that is what we have today. Because we don't have a system like that. Tomorrow's workers are suppose to pay for today's retirees.

The system does not work, it needs to be reformed. And yes, the government did leave a bunch of IOUs and that is why we need a new system.

BigBear;

Thank you for your response and intelligent discourse, I really appreciate getting ideas from across the asile. I have to run in a minute, my daughter a Navy LTJG is going back to San Diego and have to get her to the airport.

If Ido not get back, lets continue this monday. Look forward to our discussion.

Have a great weekend. Are you from Big Bear CA? Just thinking about your web name.

well, duh... it's because the official MSM narrative this time around is that this wonderful, magical thing called the "Tea Party" appeared out of thin air and is the most interesting thing that ever happened to politics.

nevermind that it's the same old GOP underneath that gaudy "patriot" costume, and that they're chanting the same old slogans the GOP always chants, and that nobody is actually running on the "Tea Party" ticket, and that none of their candidates (should they win) are going to vote against the standard GOP line. no, the MSM is very excited about this charade. they love playing Pretend.

so they've invented a race where these magical teabaggers are shaking up incumbents all over (though 80% of incumbents will be re-elected) and it's the teabaggers' race to lose. how exciting for the MSM!

@!$%#ing idiots.

kpokeefe:

I do not know why you feel the need to call me names. You are just shouting out to everybody your own impotence and lack of intelligence. Have a great day.

President Bush gets the credit for delivering the Bill and President Obama gets credit for implementing the bill and making sure we got our money back.

What a moron! The executive branch is the enforcement branch of the government. Once Obama came into office he was OBLIGATED by LAW to do as the LAW said(meaning the TARP bill had already been passed and signed). There was nothing else for him to do but wait until the debt had risen back to a profitable level.

This isn't like planting seeds (Bush) and watering (Obama) a garden. If say my dad died tomorrow and I inherited the stock which he bought, it doesn't make it my investment...I inherited it and the IRS is going to want 55% in taxes verses the 15% if I had invested it. UNBELIEVEABLE! I can't believe they let you stay in the Navy until retirement age. You wouldn't have made it in the Army with your backassward logic!

Mr. Tired, I got a bridge....

impotence and lack of intelligence

I think I have detailed specifically your impotence and limited intellectual prowess. You make pointless statements and contort facts in every post I see you on.

kpokeefe:

You are a repugnant fool. Go climb back under your slimy rock your mommy wants you.

Bush signed the bill and the Obama adminstration implemented it, in fact they even changed some of it to make sure the money and restrictions were met. I have no idea what your problem is other than calling people names. You want to play that game ok we just played it.

Am I the only one here to notice that TARP was all Barack Obama's fault until it made a profit, now it's the last great accomplishment of George W. Bush? Go figure.

No, John, you have it backwards.

It was Bush's fault, until it made a profit. Now POTUS gets credit.

Track the stories. Bush and Paulson were in bed with Wall Street, yada yada yada, Wall Street got millions from Bush, Main Street got nothing, and blather blather blather.

Now it turns a profit, and POTUS is the hero. No, no one's a hero in this. This was the largest mangling and bastardization of the financial markets. When the government removes the risk of failure, there is no market anymore - just the government and their cronies.

And by the way? The majority of you should be ashamed of yourself. Most of this vine has become a waste of time, because all you can do is attack people that don't agree on a personal level.

OK PTAF, I think there's some common ground here. "Too big to fail" still hasn't been addressed. I'm also not confident that the ability to disguise risk through securitization and hand it off to the next sucker has, either. The real heroes were people like Brooksley Born who argued years ago that just such a disaster could happen, but they were not heeded.

PragmaticToAFault "And by the way? The majority of you should be ashamed of yourself. Most of this vine has become a waste of time, because all you can do is attack people that don't agree on a personal level."

You're right. This vine has just become a gathering place for so-called 'tolerant' liberals to demonize anybody that disagrees with them.

Forward off the cliff.

Uh, Roy, PTAF is Conservative and we just agreed that not all the important issues with the financial system have been addressed. You came along and made a statement about this being a place where Liberals gather just to agree with each other and attack Conservatives.

Project much?

You're hilarious.

LouisJ

Sweet!

LouisJ

But there are survivors that realize at the end that a killer is on the loose… they realize that they had a will to run and survive the horrors. We progressive LIBERALS choose to live in town away from the killings (as being the smart thing to do)… we’re the ambulance drivers and police officers that go to the camp to clean it up knowing that the witless TEA Baggers went to CAMP TEA BAG. We warned you not to go but you ignored us.

Wow, that is a great analogy; moreover, it's a true scenario.

*A swastika-covered envelope containing a toxic white powder was delivered in the mail to Raul Grijalva in Arizona because of his stance on immigration.

* Someone shot into the pentagon.

*Byron Williams was inspired by Glenn Beck to kill member s of the ACLU and the Tides foundation.

I know more than ever it is the responsibilty of our progressives to rescue this country from the scico-paths in the TEA PARTY.

BTW: did you hear Glenn Beck say George Soros has a hit out on him because Soros gave Media Matters 1 million

It's time for Glenn Beck to be fired. All Glenn does is incite violence.

Louis J. With Halloween approaching, nothing like a scarey story to end the week.

Glenn Beck is a floor mat for evil. I have nothing to say about floor mats other than wiping my shoes off on them.

Louis...

I don't agree with what you're saying here completely, but dude...you get some SERIOUS points for creativity. That was pretty good my friend! And sadly (Grimey hanging head in shame) I have to admit to tuning in to the Friday the 13th marathon for a while last night.

Perfect script for Halloween, Louis.

About George Soros, a man who helped other Jews in Hungary when he was only 13, who went on to use his wealth to help others enjoy open societies in the world, is victim of the same crazy demonizing of Pelosi or others--like Newt Gingrich was better in some way?

Of course the Koch Brothers, or Dick Armey, or Karl Rove are not villains like Soros?! The Koch Brothers, who are secretly behind numerous organizations are a part of the not transparent influence in our elections along with the Chamber. And conservatives are worried about insider trading in France? At least Soros openly reports what he is doing.

It never ceases to amaze me how crazy these people are. Conservatives need a simplistic, black and white world. That's why they think there are only two choices--keeping Bush's tax cuts or letting the cuts expire. We know there is a third choice--keeping the cuts for the middle class and letting the cuts expire for those earning a quarter million or more. But gray is too complicated for conservatives and makes their heads hurt. Gagh!

TP, the thing that interests me about Soros is that he's really nothing more than a character plugged into the Conservative narrative. Armand Hammer occupied exactly the same position for followers of the John Birch Society and other Conservative fringe groups 30 years ago. Now he's dead and they need to find another villain. A rich man who doesn't believe in the aristocracy the Right is trying to create is a danger, and must be destroyed in the public eye. Now that the Kochs are running things http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics it shouldn't be a surprise that they're playing the same cards laid down by their Daddy, who was a founding member of the JBS.

Hey! What, are you slacking? You forgot to blubber all over yourself about how much you love Blacks and Latinos! I've come to look forward to it!

Thanks for bringing Rev. Treason to our attention, Pat. Conservative leadership is just loaded with these sorts of unhinged, dangerous individuals. In an ultimately doomed effort to cling to a more and more radical "base" every election cycle, the Republican Party has opened Pandora's Box and every evil known to the world is contained inside. Militia's, racists, tinfoil hat conspiricists don't form the core of the GOP, but they now have to be welcome at the table in order to produce a party. Fortunately, once all the terrors had flown away there was one thing left in the box.

Hope.

The sad part of this is the nut jobs are serious. They threaten 2nd amendments rights, threaten violence if they lose and this threat has become mainstream conservative thinking no matter how much they deny it. This is the house that FOX and right wing media built--one of hate, fear and a belief that only conservatives should be in power and if they aren't, they will resort to violence.

It seems that the peanut gallery is cheering each other as usual.

Here we go with the DK and TP links again.

Jody: If you don't like FOX, don't watch it. I don't look at MSNBC because I don't like it. I do not watch FOX either. When I want a good laugh I come on this board.

All you wanna-be political experts need to look at yourself in the mirror sometime. No one in this room runs a damn thing but your mouth. These POLITICIANS will do whatever the hell they want and idiots will keep voting them in for 30yrs.

Calling people that you don't agree with a nut job just shows your lack of depth. People on the right can call YOU a nut job and what does it prove?

I don't think "Reverend Treason" said anything more inflammatory than Sharron Angle when she said that people would have to resort to "Second Amendment remedies" if she didn't get her way. Those are scarcely code words. Most people know that the 2nd Amendment is about guns, although Tea Partiers don't seem to understand that the reason the authors of the Constitution included a right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights had absolutely nothing to do with overthrowing the federal government by violent means.

Pat, Boston, MA

Thanks for posting Keith Olbermann over @ DailyKos Ever one Please read what Pat, Boston, MA posted from Keith's

In case you don't have time I pasted one very important excerpt below...

“We have a constitutional remedy. And the framers say if that don’t work, revolution.”

Pat, and every one else this is beyond politics now. This is not only treason; it's anarchy and chaos comparable to major catastrophe of Mother Nature.

This Tea Baggers statement chimes right into Louis' story and the incidents I stated in response to his story.

Yes, believe it or not, while things are being rebuilt the loss of revenue can devastate this country. Is it almost impossible for US to see the most obvious effects, loss of lives or maiming, destruction of assets, and the image the greatest country will have?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PragmaticToAFault

You posted donations to Democrats. Great!

But, you can't do that with the Chamber of Commerce; which is the reason why 84% of the people, democrats, independents and those on the right are turning against the right wing narrative of the Democrats do it too.

Interestingly, the tide is turning because of the out-of touch GOPTP candidates and donations from unknown sources. Americans don’t like the idea of obstruction either in addition to this hypocrisy. unemployment rate means more than divisiveness the right is bringin.

One financial services lobbyist in Washington says the shift back to Republicans underscored disappointment with the Obama administration. Political donations were also down generally, the person says, because bankers and other financial services employees were not seeing the bonuses they once did.
Still, Republicans might struggle in some respect. Voters in New York, including those on Wall Street, are considered socially moderate and, according to the lobbyist, may hesitate giving to Republicans on grounds that party attitudes had veered to the right.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9284e9d2-dd59-11df-beb7-00144feabdc0.html

Americans don’t want foreign influences in this democracy.

Democrats are getting the message overwhelmingly to more people in this United State Tea baggers are trying to divide today.

Houston, thanks for mentioning Sharon Angle. These aren't the only two, either. It's become commonplace for those on the Right to ponder the necessity to "water the tree of Liberty" and otherwise take action because the DULY ELECTED goverment of the United States might not do what they want.

Houston,

I think you are wrong. I think our forefathers new exactly what they were doing with the 2nd Amendments.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

And I think of Jefferson as a true patriot. JMO

Where are our philosopher-farmers now?

BigBear62

I think you are wrong. I think our forefathers new exactly what they were doing with the 2nd Amendments. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

You just illustrated what John B. just wrote. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about watering the Tree of Liberty. What it does say is:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

So get your musket and join the state malitia, if you want.

And I think of Jefferson as a true patriot. JMO

No doubt he was. But Jefferson never called for a revolution when a DEMOCRATIC election didn't turn out the way he thought it should like the Tea Baggers are doing. If he had, it would have made him a traitor, not a patriot.

EXO

Where are our philosopher-farmers now?

They sold out to Archer Daniels Midland.

Houston,

What is free about our state today?

Crippling taxes? High unemployment--I guess 2 years (rounded up from 99 weeks)--and on unemployment benefits? Health care mandates and fines? FCC regulations trying to give a President the authority to shut down the internet? Bailouts, because they are "too big to fail"--at taxpayer expense? Where's our dividend checks for money paid back?

How much do you really need the government to control your life?

Hahaha, good one~

Once again conservatives are so simplistic--if you don't like watching the FOX Political Organization don't watch it (we can no longer call it news, and sure as heck can't call it fair and balanced now that they are directly involved in elections).

This isn't about whether we like someone or something. It's about the role of a free press in a democracy. The role is to be a watchdog and to help inform voters. That means the media should be investigative and should be fact-based.

FOX and Hate Radio have no clue what journalistic standards are. Glenn Beck openly admits he is a "commentator" not held to facts. Unfortunately, there is a large percentage of people who do know how to differentiate a credible source or legitimate news from an entertainer like Limbaugh who makes millions from sensationalism and controversy.

What this is about, in case you still haven't figured it out, is democracy - 'k'? If you don't want a free press and prefer state news, feel free to move elsewhere--maybe Russia and then you can fear communism for real.

TruePatriot,

Please enlighten us on a news channel or news show that is not biased towards one political party or another.

You can"t refer to CNN (Clinton News Network), ABC (Another Barack Channel), or NBC (Notta Barack Critic) as being fair or balanced.

Please tell us the channels that provide investigate news that is fair.

And believe me, I know that Fox is right leaning, and whatever happened to having simple answers to simple questions?

Where are your brilliant ideas to save the country? Spend it?

Democracy is what should be saved, if we had a true democracy, but since we have a representative democracy, we have to elect people that will do the job of the majority, not what is in their best interest to stay a politician.

BigBear62: What is free about our state today?

Crippling taxes?

Federal taxes are lower under Obama than they've been in 50 years. (That tax cut that the Teabaggers don't like to admit they got).

High unemployment--I guess 2 years (rounded up from 99 weeks)--and on unemployment benefits?

Unemployment was higher under Ronald Reagan. Should there have been a violent insurrection against Reagan?

Health care mandates and fines?

Mitt Romney imposed mandates in Massachusetts and the Republicans backed them as part of their own health care reform proposals until Obama was for them. Should the citizenry have gone after Mitt and Chuck Grassley with their pitch forks and muskets?

FCC regulations trying to give a President the authority to shut down the internet?

I'm against that, too, but I don't view it as grounds for bloodshed. I don't recall TPers taking up arms when Bush vastly expanded the government's powers to spy on US citizens without a warrent.

Bailouts, because they are "too big to fail"--at taxpayer expense? Where's our dividend checks for money paid back?

Most of the money has been returned already from TARP -- with interest. Not a very good justification for violence there. Plus, that and the subsequent stimulus saved us from another Great Depression (unemployment more than twice as high as it is now).

I agree we have a problem with the "media" in general. A lot of the news is entertainment, sports, weather -- topics that are not news unless a celebrity breaks the law or there is a hurricane.

But just saying all the media sucks does not excuse FOX and Hate Radio for sucking the most.

Houston,

I know that tax rates might seem low for some of us, but they have not extended the Bush tax cuts so which means that January 1, 2011, everyone's taxes go up. I have used the projected tax rate hikes on several websites, and my poor taxes will go up between $900 and $1000 dollars. Now that might not be crippling for someone down in Texas, but it sure is here. And besides, if we were just paying taxes on income and nothing else, that might be okay, but any time you purchase something, taxes. State taxes, county taxes, city taxes, luxury taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, etc....how many more taxes do we need. Seriously?

I remember Reagan, and people were pretty put off with him also. I would probably have not raised arms against him, and I am not raising arms up against Obama. I am saying that if Americans finally get tired of crappy government, we have the right to bear arms, even against an unjust government.

As for TARP, today I have given credit where credit is due, but we still haven't gotten all the money back from the auto industry, the housing industry, the stimulus package. I don't back Mitt Romney's mandated insurance either. We as American's have the right to choose, and if I choose not to purchase health insurance, that should be my choice. I should not be fined by the government for not having insurance.

But what saved Roosevelt's socialistic plan was World War II, but a lot of his programs were being declared unconstitutional by the supreme court also. But reality is, the US probably would have been in a longer depression had the Germans and Japanese not decided to rule the world.

True, it only sucks the most in your opinion, because you disagree with it, and you want it silenced - just like the left wing wants ALL dissent all across the country silenced.

Too damn bad for you, isn't it, that Fox - far from being silenced - pulls 4x the ratings. Deal with it.

I.R. Great analogy to end the week. It seems Americans are trusting souls but sooner or later, we wise up and recognize The Sting for what it is. Former President Bush just recently reminded Americans that he regrets not being able to privatize social security. Boldly, he regrets that the senior citizen trust fund was not put in the hands of Wall Street to shred in 2008. It seems Bush and his GOPer "privatize social security" pals are likely cousins of Willie Sutton.

Kissing Cousins at the very least my Iowa ace

Jody:

Bush suggested privatizing PART and it was voluntary. This whole policy was aimed at younger individuals but the Democrats as usual demonized it to the point where old folks thought he was taking their SS.

I guarantee people 40 and under right now, will not receive hardly any benefits by the time they reach retirement age of probably 70 by then.

Baby boomers will eat up everything.

BTW: Everyone pays into the system but what you pay benefits the generation ahead of you. This generation now in general do not work further more even finish high school.

You see there Soldier that's where my problem starts. Instead of guaranteeing that folks under Forty aren't going to receive something that's due them why don't those folks step and set down at the table and work out a solution instead of taking it as a given that its going to happen.If they did that and they thought that Privatisation was the solution to the problem and worked it out so that their retirement level was guaruteed by the privatisation entity's same as Social Security is guaranteed by the United States you might come closer to getting some support. Instead of moaning about a perceived problem what's it going to take to solve the problem. Then go do that

"This generation now in general do not work further more even finish high school."

Wrong. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1391/college-enrollment-all-time-high-community-college-surge

Independent Redneck Va.

As far as that accounting principal they don’t want you to think about that one to much either. You see if folks start realizing that old Willie’s descendents are the ones with all the money then we might figure out that that’s where we’re going to have to go back to come up with some operating capital to move ourselves forward. That may interfere with them using their ill gotten gains to maintain themselves and the hideout in the style to which they’ve become accustomed to.

Thanks for breaking this sad but true story down into plain and simple language.

They are the very people who have also tricked US into believing it's US who should pay lower taxes the same as them. In reality it is they who pay nada, zilch, zero nothing in taxes.

We have a very smart President. He did not politicize he had lowered taxes though payroll deductions. The President knew it would stimulate the economy rather than sending out checks that would sit in a bank.

On the other hand, these Wall Street descendants are snookering Americans because they ship their money to "offshore" tax havens. For instance...

In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax -- they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.

http://thefourteenthbanker.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/looters/
In an American bank the interest earned is taxable where as a dummy company in a foreign country prevents this liars from being taxed.
Illegal immigrants contribute more to America than these hucksters complain about.

Someone brought up a good point. Politicians snooker the elderly into thinking they are going to lose their SS because the gov't wants to privatize part of it. I like many others on here, lost valuable assets during the recession, but by "letting it ride" those investments have risen again. Although still down from 2007/2008, I am not nearly at as big a loss.

But no one wants to touch SS, because people believe they are owed that. Well frankly, they aren't. It was suppose to be a supplement to one's retirement, not their entire retirement. Because people think they should have SS, they have quite saving and planning for their own retirement, just let the gov't take care of them.

It was a great idea in 1940, when we had 154 workers for every retired person. Now we have 2.9 workers per retired person and it will only go down at the baby boomers retire. Either it gets fixed, are we all start paying more in taxes.

And another person was correct when they said that benefits will have to be cut or retirement age increased, mainly because even if more people are looking for jobs and going to community colleges, those jobs don't pay as much and the amount taken in by SS is dropping through "natural selection".

Do any of you have a plan to save it? Besides increasing taxes or blaming Bush and the government for borrowing against it? Any real progressive ideas?

Big Bear,

Finally, a comment that opens a discussion, instead of hosting talking points and the evils of the republicans.

Here's an idea for you, means testing. Determine the retirement income level at which an individual (or individual and spouse) should receive their full benefits from SS, and then start reducing the potential SS payment when that level is exceeded. What does that mean to those of us that have been fortunate enough to retain our jobs and continue to make contributions to 401K's, or other retirement vehicles? Well basically, it means that by providing for ourselves, we've managed to eliminate ourselves from SS benefits, or a portion thereof, but honestly, does a millionaire need SS? Probably not. I'm not depending on SS, (54 at this time, and not a millionaire, not even close), I'm depending upon myself, as I really don't think that the Feds will be able to cure the potential shortfalls in SS.

Secondarily, raise the eligibility age for specific classes of employees. I work in an office, no reason at all that I shouldn't be able to continue to work until I'm 70, assuming that I'm still a productive asset for the firm. Leave it alone for people in high risk environments, farmers, ironworkers, etc.

Thirdly, eliminate the 106K upper limit on the tax, where did that number come from anyway?

I'm open to other suggestions, but ignoring the problem isn't really acceptable any longer. Some people will probably depend entirely upon SS for their retirement, thankfully, I'm not one of them.

Look up the word conservative. You will not see words like open-minded, progress, change, etc. These are people who are about fear, especially if you are into the End Times, you are destined to doom and gloom. We see it in regard to climate change, Middle East peace and foreign policy, etc.

But specifically to Social Security, even moving only younger people to private retirement, or making contributions voluntary would be disastrous. It just so happens Americans aren't very good at saving. And even in the "good old days" many lost their pensions when companies went belly up. We just witnessed the Great Recession, when people lost 401k wealth as well as equity in their homes.

Without social nets that are funded in advance, the reality is people would be left to starve on the streets, and welfare would have to be provided completely on the tax payer dime. We need a guaranteed system, and the only way to do that is through government administration and mandatory participation.

This is not to say that the current system can't be greatly improved. It could be made into a professionally managed system with investment in safe and guaranteed instruments. It could be made impossible for congress to raid it.

If the Republican/Tea Party would offer viable solutions such as this, rather than just being the Party of No and criticism, they would have had real and lasting support from the majority.

Coming full circle, this is not possible because conservatives can't think in a forward moving way. They can only wax nostalgic about bartering chickens for health care.

One of the big "unsaids" when Conservatives talk about allowing "some" people out of SS is that it destabilizes the system, worsens the state of funding, and bolsters their own argument that the entire system should be done away with. It's like stabbing someone, then standing over the victim and screaming "My God, he's bleeding!!"

BB I'm going to disagree with you just a little about your assertion as to what S.S. was supposed to accomplish. The original intent was to provide the basic necessities for old folks to stay alive because back at that time in our history we did have folks without family to support them literally starving to death when they became to old or infirm to work. I believe that as a society we need to insure that level and the Government is the most secure entity to underwrite that level. Now if a fellow wants a little Gravy to go with his meat and potato's then by all means he should be responsible for making his extra investment in different markets. Then if things don't work out the way he hopes they will and he loses or gets scammed on that investment he still has that basic level to fall back on. Its kind fo a pay me now pay me later deal. I believe in paying enough now to make it secure so if all else fails in the future I'll have some money so I don't have to watch someone suffer and not be able to do anything about it

I am glad to disagree with you Redneck. I have posted above a program that I think we should work on together, as a group. I am not so right winged that I don't feel the need for compromise. I know other that won't.

But Social Security is a system set up for workers today to pay for workers that are retired, hoping that each generation will follow suit. At the time of its induction, Roosevelt and others, IMO from readings, was that providing a small measure of financial security, they could get older people retired, opening jobs for the younger people during the Great Depression.

During the 1920s, 30s, & 40s, I thought that families were more close knitted and that they lived together and the younger members of the families took care of the elderly, (the Waltons). Therefore, the small measure of financial assistance given actually helped everyone. But it was only set up to be a supplement to one's own retirement savings. Not their entire retirement. It was only during the 60s, 70s, & 80s that people decided to overspend, with the help of credit cards, banks, & etc, that people really quit saving their own money. (Okay, through today) Betting that as they got older the SS system would be there to take care of them.

Well unless reformed, it won't be there for me, my children, or your children. We have to moderately change the way we do governmental business.

A sensible discussion on how to address the looming crisis with Social Security. Outstanding. Kudos to BigBear, Reneck, Patriot, L.A. and even the USN Vet. A rare moment on this vine indeed.

An idea or two from an independent:

Raise the eligibility age for new entrants into the workforce (new payers) by one year every couple of years and use a formula to calculate the eligibility based upon life expectancy. The unfortunate secret of the "New Deal" is that SS was never intended to be the primary retirement program for all Americans. At the time FDR signed the bill (1935) the retirement age was set to 65 and the life expectancy for a man age 35 was 60 and a woman was 64 according to CDC statistics. It was a supplement for those truly in need and as many posters have noted, there were 150+ workers covering each retiree. That will reform the system for the next generation just entering the workforce and reset the expectation that it is a retirement program and will hopefully reignite a healthier personal savings rate.

The second half of the solution for those already paying into the system is to means test for the highest income individuals that will enter retirement and yes, establish a set of eligibility date increases and lower benefit amounts for those a decade or more away from retirement. For those reaching retirement this decade, it would be unfair to change eligibility, but perhaps not unreasonable to means test and not allow any recipient to extract more than they have paid in at some point, say 20 years down the road.

If you believe the statistics the system is supposed to be solvent for at least another 15-20 years. (2038 was the last stat I remember reading.) Gradual increases in eligibility date and modest decreases in the payout starting a decade from now will put the system back into the social safety net status it was intended to be rather than the retirement system it has evolved into that I think we can all agree is not sustainable.

But there have been crazy people fly their planes into IRS buildings. We should condemn the TEA Party for whipping their constituents into a frenzy to commit suicide and kill fellow Americans in the process.

People that are willing to kill fellow Americans for a cause that is fruitless are not needed in our political process.

LouisJ, are you talking about that guy who attempted to blow up the Discover building?

To make such statements displays your extreme bias, and if you would sit and think for a moment, your statement is much, much worse than anything Juan WIlliams said. But, of course, YOUR comments are acceptable because they are favorable to your political leanings. Craziness.

Relax CU old Juan has done pretty good for himself. Fox signed him to a 2 million dollar a year contract.

Fox where nuts go to die.

First of all, you know that the man that flew that plane into the building was ticked off because of the off color fanatics of the TEA Party and their great BIG Government... secondly, I am not in the MSM spotlight like Mr. Williams, the FAUX News hack.

Thirdly, you sound like you condone what the man did. Claim him for what he represented and condemn his actions as any patriot should.

What I found odd in Juan William's comment is the Muslim "garb" (his term) makes him nervous on airplanes. If memory serves me from the video clips of some of the 9/11 hijackers--NONE of them were dressed in Muslim "garb" as he put it. They were dressed to blend in with other passengers. The underwear bomber and other attempters--NONE were dressed in Muslim "garb".

Poor Juan Williams is outraged that NPR fired him. The usual cast of free speechers on FOX like Palin are tweeting to defend him--those liberals do not believe in free speech. If an employee of any firm behaves in a manner inconsistent with the ethical rules and standards of that firm, that employee is likely to be fired. Liberals did not deny Williams his free speech, NPR determined that what he said violates their standards for representing their firm.

Do not feel sorry for Williams because he had two jobs, and it was revealed yesterday that he received a new contract from FOX, $2 million to aid them in their continued efforts to demonize Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, and anyone else they can find to push their fear and hate agenda.

Can you please provide just one example of the "Right" stifling first amendment rights? I would like just one specific example.

Janet- you think it's the LEFT that is hollering to cutoff funding for NPR, thus taking their voice (i.e.- first ammendment right) down.

The biggest example of the right wing nut jobs suppressing speech? Easy, the Texas School Book debacle where the right wing neanderthals re wrote the text books in their own image. They refused to allow any information regarding more liberal thought. It not only suppresses speech, it presents wrongheaded information has fact. But, I suppose that is okay in janet's world.

The Juan Williams situation has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Juan demonstrated that he still has the ability to say whatever he's thinking. His employer warned him multiple times to not contaminate his reputation as a journalist by also voicing his opinion for money. He refused to comply and his employer responded as they should have. Any manager would do the same thing with an employee who is compromising his/her ability to do the job.

Drive by Observer. Suggesting that NPR, have its funding cutoff is not stiffling free speech. Their funding hasn't been cut off, so there is no stiffling going on. By the way, its not only the right suggesting their funding should be eliminated. Eugene Robbins is calling for it, as well as many other left leaning people.

Another example that is truely an example of free speech that HAS been stifled.

Thanks very much

LouisJ, I don't condone what any of them did. The point is that you are attributing the actions of extremists to the thoughts and beliefs of the general group....isn't that precisely what we should NOT be doing? I mean, you seem to say that we should not do that with respect to Muslims, so why shouldn't that same principle apply across the board? And to say that the actions of extremists should exclude the ability of the group in general from participation in American politics would seem to suggest that Muslims should not be allowed to participate, which would most certainly be repugnant to American ideals. In fact, your little statement works to exclude everyone from the political system, as we can easily identify extremists from all conceivable political ideologies who have or have attempted to kill innocent Americans in the name of their thoughts and beliefs.

But I suppose you only want to silence those with whom you do not agree politically. Nice.

As far as Juan Williams is concerned, he did not spew "hate"; he was expressing an honest thought, which, to me, should encourage a more open and honest dialogue. How are we ever going to reconcile as a country, when we can't speak openly and honestly? I would submit that it is impossible. That is what is remarkable to me in this situation. I mean, he also followed up his statement with the idea that we must make efforts to establish extremists from peace-loving Muslims, but nobody cares about that temperate and true statement. But, no....it is easier and more fun to label him a bigot, publicly lash him, and sweep his statements under a rug.

I liked what Bill Maher said on his show last week. Bill O'Reilly is correct that 9-11 was perpetrated by Muslims, and we should acknowledge this. But O'Reilly is incorrect to blame the entire Muslim community, and even more incorrect to advocate actions that are contrary to freedom of religion.

Or worse, most Americans still blame Iraq because of Turd Blossom Rove and catapulting the Bush/Cheney propaganda. The only thing worse than no information is misinformation (i.e., lies).

Pledge drive this week at KCUR and according to the promo spots, NPR gets less than 10% of their funding from Federal sources.

I personally think NPR is wrong. I thought it was dumb of them to tell their employees they couldn't attend the Jon Stewart Restoring Sanity rally. I had a link last week demonstrating that Scarborough's rant this morning was completely off base; but he had the microphone so lots of people heard him. NPR is constantly villified as a liberal press instrument. The facts support that MORE Republicans are given airtime on NPR. I assume it is because they can't seem to make a cogent statement so NPR 'handicaps' them the extra time. At any rate,...I still love NPR. I find them to be a good source of information and if they had a problem with an employee making statements that made them uncomfortable, they could always use the airwaves to QUALIFY the comments as NOT REFLECTIVE OF THEIR VIEWS, as we've seen MANY times throughout history and print, radio or television news.

So what NPR has 'effectively done is BECOME the news rather than reporting on the news. And, they've managed to take the focus off The Chamber of Commerce - who deep down would still be slave holders, from a strictly commerce/profit/free market standpoint. Of course that's just my opinion.

True, if your thinking process is so infantile that you have to have it explained to you EVERY SINGLE TIME someone says "Muslims attacked us on 9/11" that that does NOT include EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD?

There really is no hope for you.

I know it probably kills you to admit O'Reilly might be right about something, and that PC bullcrap has gone WAY out of control - and then you go on to pull more PC bullcrap.

How hard is it to say "extremist Muslims" or "Muslim extremists"? How hard is it to acknowledge that the hijackers weren't "people in Muslim garb"?

During the decades of unrest in Ireland the press didn't say "Catholics attacked Protestant targets" they said "the Irish Republican Army attacked Protestant targets".

O'Reilly wasn't right. Language matters and he knows it. He uses language that's divisive and promotes anger in his viewers on a daily basis.

Question...with the Tea Party leading the charge might the Repulbicans have done just as well being left in the ocean to drown?

I DESPISE Peggy Noonan. When she pops up on the Sunday talk shows, I turn the channel. She's an oily, slitherly, worm-like woman with a phony "lady-like" sctick that covers up her love of totalitarianism. She loves a man in jack boots.

The Tea Party, in my opinion, is nothing more than the conservative base of the Republican Party. These are the people who gave us George Bush JR. They are the Archie Bunkers of America, the John Birchers, the McCarthyites, et al. Always been around, like bacteria. Like bacteria, they play a role. Personally I hope they knock off Senators Snowe and Collins in their primaries in 2012, so Democrats can elect the next senators from Maine.

Da Noid

Aren't you a bit confused?

It isn't the Republicans about to be swamped by the wave.

Amy, I despise Noonan as well. Can't stomach looking at her, let alone listening to her.

Actually, Amy-

I'm not that big a fan of Noonan myself...although she writes beautifully, I often disagree with her.

Her point that the Republicans appeared done after 2008, and destined for regional party status, is valid. Most political pundits are astonished at the turnaround. About as likely as a phoenix rising from the ashes...but this is no fable.

As I said, President Obama's and the Democrats' agenda has had at least as much to do with the re-animation of the Republican Party's prospects as the Tea Party Movement has.

Credit where credit is due.

Pat, Boston, MA

She's so affected.

So Mixed Bag the pundits were wrong in 2008 about the republican party. But I guess you think they're right about the tidal wave. Do you not think they are probably wrong about the tidal wave also?

Mixed Bag,

My problem with Peggy Noonan is personal and catty, I admit.

"Most political pundits are astonished at the turnaround" The pundits are never right about anything, haven't you figured that out?

The Party that elected George W. Bush twice wasn't about to just "go away." I wasn't surprised the opposition to President Obama was relentless. They were against him before he took the oath. Tea Partiers are angriest that their "team " lost, otherwise, they would have been protesting Bush's feckless spending. But, then, no one pays me for my opinion.

from the Rolling Stones:

well she's very wealthy it's true
so in that she is one up one you
she's dressed all in red, white and blue
and she always knows more than you do

she's so affected
cool, calm, collected

she knows who to smile to today
she has just been brought up in that way
she knows all the right games to play
and she always just knows what to say

Mo where were the pundits wrong? You keep repeating this line...

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html#US_2

You are wrong. The polls and pundits ALL favored the president.

Look, MB has a point. We all heard the chatter two years ago unless we were ostriching in our backyards. The consensus was that the Republicans were done for - a marginalized and tired organization with no relevance to the national scene, catering only to the interests of throwbacks who couldn't comprehend the youthful revolution that swept Obama into office.

The rhetoric was eerily similar in tone to the way in which the dot-com-era 'new economy' was lauded back in the late nineties.

Whoever kicked off the Tea Party, be it the machinations of the Koch brothers or legitimate, home-grown grass-roots efforts and regardless of the validity of the complaints the Tea Party levels against the Democrats, no one can deny that the anger coming out of that group - the very loud, very well-organized and publicized anger - rallied Republicans and made the GOP a legitimate political force in time for the mid-terms. That anger is directed at Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress; it is their policies that fan the flames.

Neverminding, of course, that softer conservative voices suffered the wroth of the masses. I've yet to see the Tea Party support any Democrat running this season.

I'm not a fan of Noonan either, butter wouldn't melt in her mouth. She may have a valid point about the Tea Party bringing the GOP back to life but she should be asking what the long-term impact of TP extremism will have on GOP, is there more harm than good. After the midterm election, I'm inclined to agree with the republican analyst who said there will likely be an internal battle for the soul of the republican party and whether the GOP will remain a viable political party is in question because the majority of Americans are center left/right--the TP has taken the GOP to the extreme right. Peggy Noonan may be cheering the resurrection of the GOP via the TP but is that wise thinking.

I don't believe the hype of the majority of Americans are in the center. Most Americans are one side or the other with about 10% confused. I see it 45% either way. the 10% is what all politicians go after.

Obama won with 53% netting most of the confused. McCain still ended up with 47%. Do the math. Country still divided. If you break it down it was not a run away election as most would like you to think. McCain was a terrrible candidate and most Republicans cant stand him.

soldier1

I kind of agree with you, on the 45% either way, 10% confused equation.

I was actually afraid, very afraid, when the Republicans nominated McCain that we would lose against him. I think, if the Republicans had nominated any other candidate than McCain, their loss would have been much greater. You picked up plenty of Independents and conservative Democrats with the choice of a Vietnam Vet hero with a "Moderate" reputation.

But, by all means, nominate Sarah Palin in 2012. Oh, yes, that's REALLY the winning strategy. Go for it!

40% of the electorate vote democratic no matter what

40% of the electorate vote republican no matter what

20% of the electorate swings back and forth between the two parties when they feel one is going too far to the left or right...

The only explanation for what ever success the Tea Party has had is willful ignorance (fueled by FOX/Hate radio) and emotion (e.g., anger/fear) rather than Rule of Reason.

Great information, John B.

A couple weeks ago, I clipped out a political cartoon of a huge man lying on an airmattress floating in his private swimming pool--"Save the Billionaires, this wondrous creature's yearly earnings are up to 20,000 times your own! The very thought of fair taxation threatens its continued existence on this planet."

Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group, one of the richest billionaires is threated by President Obama's proposal to close the tax loophole that lets the hedge fund operators pay 15% tax, an outrageous intrusion into their wealth comparing it as Schwarzman put it to "when Hitler invaded Poland." Tantrums, the millionaires and billionaires are throwing tantrums because they might have to pay the same rate of tax as middle America and small business pays. One of these super rich guys whined they are being picked on and said it amounts to "persecution of the minority." Greed, apparently, clouds the mind and the heart.

The wealthy aren't the only ones who can afford to evade taxes. There are the business owners who show no earnings (we know when they try to get a loan). The self-employed abuse write-offs, and then there are those getting paid cash under the table, or bartering. Or they may get behind, then will negotiate with the IRS pennies to the dollar.

The reason Greece is in so much trouble is because no one is paying taxes--that's the part conservatives leave out when fear-mongering about how the U.S. will become like Greece. To the Something for Nothing Crowd, if we become like Greece it will be because the shrinking W2 middle class are the only ones paying taxes!

Well said, TP. Like many of the Conservatives who come here I resent my tax situation too, but for a completely different reason. Most of them resent the poor and consider them to be leeches. I understand that nearly all of them want to succeed just as much as anyone but circumstances make it difficult to impossible for them. I resent the fact that the rich have so effectively managed to avoid giving much back to the society that makes their luxurious life possible.

Jody:

Looks like you and Navy are on the same page; spotlighting the fact that big business and foreign moneys are trying to buy this election. Way to go girl.

Last time I looked, it was votes, not money that determined election outcomes.

Jody:

Nice post. Looks like we are on the same page again. It was good to see over the last few days some of the media outlets finally are looking at how this country is being sold to the highest bidders whether they be home grown or foreign, makes no difference.

As the days/weeks progress more pieces of the puzzle fall into place. The republican/tea party (the tea party is just the old right wing radicals under a different name hoping we wont notice who they are) agenda for the systematic destruction of the middle class, rewriting of the constitution to their benefit and the shredding of the very fabric of our democracy is becoming crystal clear.

The republicans may win the battle of 2010 but they will not win 2012. If they take the House as I suspect they will, they are going to have to start governing. They will no longer be able to stay in "nap time" and do nothing. If they do, they will loose in 2012.

Great post as always Jody!

"Nap time" - Perfect. LOL

Thanks. Yes, Navy, I see we were on the same page.

Wonder what grade the media would get?

Of course since they are judge and jury, it would be an "A" of course! :o)

Well the president has already given himself a "B+" lol

Barack Obama gives himself a B plus for his first year

US President Barack Obama has awarded himself a B plus for his first 11 months in office, stressing in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that there was still much to be done

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6807091/Barack-Obama-gives-himself-a-B-plus-for-his-first-year.html

A larger question for me is this: Is America starting to celebrate ignorance? When we see people like O'Donnell who thought she won the point on the First Amendment when she debated her opponent, why are we not outraged that someone that unsuitable could be considered for high office? This started with Palin, and her "mean girl" sound bites that the far right wing considered red meat, and they never could understand that when you get to pushing her for actual fact based knowledge, Palin had nothing substantive to say! Do we want people in office who talk about the Constitution, even when they show they do not know anything about it? Do we want those people to continue to sell America out to the highest bidder, and know that they damage not just themselves but all of us? Why is it not considered to be the most anti-American, treasonous act possible for the Chamber of Commerce to not only take foreign money, but to run seminars on outsourcing jobs to CHINA! Would you be outraged about it if the Democratic party supporters were doing the same? If so, where does partisanship end for all of you on the fringe right? All of you had better give some serious thought to this, while you will continue to enrich Dick Armey, the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch, you are well on the way to destroying America.

Think we will be giving him the same grade he gives himself?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Speaking of grades, I did not have a chance to do more than a cursory reread of my post yesterday until last evening, when I discovered a typing mistake that I must correct.

In trying to summarize was I had written the night before, I misposted something. What I should have typed is that, everything is ELASTIC in the long run, as consumers reduce their consumption and/or find acceptable substitutes.

For example, if you commute to work by train because it is less expensive than driving, the traffic is a nightmare, and you are more likely to arrive late if you drive, the price of train tickets is relatively inelastic. You need to commute by train, and the cost is something you must bear. If the cost rises to an unacceptable level, you will have to bear it for the short term; however, you will work on alternatives, such as forming a carpool, which would reduce your costs, or moving closer to your job. These are longterm solutions to the increase in cost of train tickets, thus, everything is elastic in the longterm.

I'm sorry for the mistake.

NDD: Speaking of Palin - did you know the defintion of a 'Mama Grizzly' is a woman who not only doesn't shave her legs... but... she doesn't shave her back either! lol

Hey, Feisty, good one!

I believe the electorate is about to award President Obama with a very different grade.

Feisty;

Too funny, thanks.

When is Mama Grizzly going to hibernate?

She certainly has grown an extra layer of $$$$$ over the last year!

Talk about living off the fat of ignorance...go to sleep Mama Grizzly!

Super Sex, baby! When Palin offers it, take the soup!

You are absolutely correct! Midterms are referendums on the party in power.

It is an emotional decision made out of fear and anger and not a logical decision, and typically they go against the party in power.

It has nothing to do with policy, as some people are not interested enough to actually try and understand the policies. Others are not bright enough to understand the policies and allow pundits to tell them how to think.

If it was about policies and ideas, than you would not have a foolish movement called the Tea Party.

It is an emotional decision made out of fear and anger and not a logical decision, and typically they go against the party in power.

Just like 1998?...

The U.S. House election, 1998 was the midterm Congressional election during President Bill Clinton's second term. It was a major disappointment to the Republican Party, which was expecting to gain seats due to the "six year itch" effect observed in the midterm elections held during the second terms of most presidents. Instead, the GOP lost five seats to the Democratic Party, but retained a narrow majority in the House. After the election, Clinton painted Speaker Newt Gingrich as a right wing extremist, and a wave of discontent with him (many Republican members of the House blamed his antics for the loss of more than a dozen seats over the past two congressional elections), prompted Gingrich to resign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998

Right, it has nothing to do with the political reality that we live in...lol

"...But after trotting out some of these charges with a noticeable lack of success, President Obama has come up with something new, something less common, something more befitting his stature and intellect. He's now offering a scientific, indeed neurological, explanation for his current political troubles. The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can't think straight. Part of the reason "facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time," he explained to a Massachusetts audience, "is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

Opening a whole new branch of cognitive science -- liberal psychology -- Obama has discovered a new principle: The fearful brain is hard-wired to act befuddled, i.e., vote Republican."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102104856.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

It has nothing to do with policy? Thank you for that prescient analysis...

They won't give any thought about it at all newdaydawning, their main goal is to make the Koch brothers, Rubert Murdock and Dick Armey the richest in the world, in the name of we won the election haha. They don't realize these people are taking their hard earned money and sticking it in their pockets, and laughing at them all the time their doing it.

Mo, actually that's exactly what's going on. I don't know how it can get through to them - these corporations don't want to pay taxes, they want no energy legislation, no regulations. No anything except ship jobs overseas. It makes them billions of dollars richer.

That's why they're putting all this money into the election. They're not spending this money for our (the American people) benefit.

The American people and their well being is the last thing on their minds.

Yet as you said, this is all about them being able to say- we won the election haha.

All of us Democrats are trying to look out for everybody, in every state. Yet the GOP supporters are only looking out for the rich corporations.

They're turning their backs on their own families' futures, just to make the corporations and Karl Rove happy.

There is a reason that Obama is insulting the electorate, dangerfield, and it is the same reason the DNC talking point about republican money buying the election,(neatly ignoring the inconvenient fact that public employee unions have donated the MOST money this cycle-all of it to democratic candidates and /or interests) :

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

The blame cannot be laid at Obama' feet; if you've ever been involved with a narcissist, you'll know all too well how true that is;

The blame could not be laid at Bush's feet; the electorate did not respond to that in the way they should have;

Therefore, the blame attains to a stupid electorate, driven by money donated to the opposition by straw men.

I imagine that this is the line those who are closest to Obama feed him, with no way of stopping him from repeating it. Anything to soothe his ego.

If you think he has disdain for the electorate today, wait until November 3. Narcissists do not take rejection well.

Dangerfield you left out the 1994 midterm which would be a better comparison to 2010 than 1998.

You lost in 1998 because Mr. Gingrich's Contract with America stunt failed.

Newt was a nut then, and is a nut now.

Mr, Murray

Thank you for the comment...Are you reading the Pew poll? Did you read the part of the transcript from last night's newshour? I was quoting David Chalian who said;

'I cannot think of a midterm election that is not a referendum on the president, on the party in power. That's what they are. That's what midterm elections are, by nature. And if you take a look at that Journal poll, 69 percent of Americans right now say their vote is going to be a signal either in opposition to or in support of Barack Obama, but that his -- sort of grading his performance is part of why they're voting. Only 56 percent said that in August.

You are slicing the bread one way and PBS is slicing it another...but whichever way you slice it a majority (56%) of the electorate polled by pew in August still said that it WAS a mid-term "grade" and more folks are looking at this election as a referendum on the president now (69%) than they did a month or so ago.

So are you disagreeing with Challan's analysis and/or what it means; that the more the president has engaged in campaigning, the more the electorate sees the election as being about the President?

Uh pirate..your assumption is incorrect...

Hey Dragon, I get another nickel..:)

With all due respect, Mark Murray-

Respected analysts from Charlie Cook to Stu Rothenberg to Larry Sabato...the list seems endless, have said that we're on the eve of a "wave" election. It appears possible that this "wave" could be of historic proportions.

We'll soon know for sure.

In demeanor, President Obama is perhaps the most "detached" president we've ever had...certainly in recent times, anyway.

But how can he be similarly detached from, and not related to, the current political environment?

How is that even possible?

You also ignore, Mark, the numbers who disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, unemployments, the federal deficit, HCR. . .

Think their votes are not a referendum on Obama?

I remain convinced that a large portion of of the electorate is entirely too literal,(see PPP's polling on whether Hawaii is IN the United States, at seeming odds with the overwhelming percentage who know that it IS, in fact a state. They seem to be proudly displaying their knowledge of geography).

So, asking the question separately from agenda items or dubious successes skews the result. There is every likelihood that those polled may be acknowledging that Obama, himself, is not on the ballot.

Mark,

If 35% say their vote is in support of the President, and 31% say no signal whatsoever, then the math would indicate that 34% are saying their vote is a reflection of their dissatisfaction, yes? If that's the case, and following your logic from above, then doesn't 65% of the public say they are against the President (34%), or not a signal at all (31%).

Whoa, voting is giving a grade to the President? I thought it was about platforms, solutions, candidates and merit, qualifications, achievements, voting records, ethics, that kind of stuff. Also, pass or fail is an extreme grading system don't ya think?

MB

A lot of those 'respected' sources spoke MONTHS ago. The wave they spoke of appears to be more closely aligned with attention deficit. Like so many people, most of the non-polled have lives and their focus is more "Family, Feeding said Family, work priorities, child activities, etc." Now that we are a couple of weeks away, there is a NATURAL tightening.

I submit that Republicans are given the microphone because they have idiots like ODonnell, Palin, Angle who will take it and start talking. It fills a lot of empty air time (literally and figuratively) and let's face it, it is entertaining as hell; but when it comes time to vote - Republicans are at risk of OVER CONFIDENCE! Much like ODonnell's debate performance, they are busy high fiving each other over their blatant IGNORANCE while the Dems have been OVERPEFORMING in the Absentee Ballot arena, or so it's being reported here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/a-closer-look-at-early-voting-in-colorado/64950/

Of course these trends tend to be state by state; but I don't think Republicans should continue to so blatantly measure drapes. It ain't over 'til it's over!

Morning Nash!

Can't tell you how happy I was last night to see Nightly News with Brian William's lead story being the obscene amounts of anonymous money being poured into the buying of elections by these front groups headed by none other than Karl Rove!

Someone at NBC MUST be paying attention to what 'real' voters are talking about!

I think that's earned us a nice hot bowl of popcorn & some kool-aide to wash it down! ;0)

Hey Nash,

Republicans take the house and democrats retain marginal control of the senate...

It is the economy...period

Geez Feisty,

Didnt you post this same Exact Comment Yesterday.. Hmmm Yes i think you did..

Yawn

Nash:

I sure do like your predictions...and you are the best debater on this board. Have a great weekend.

Feisty,

It has been a long week of battling ignorance . . .

It is nice to see that the media is no longer telling us to "pay no attention to the crooks behind the curtain" . . .

But of course, they have such a short attention span, if some loser tells us his kid is flying in a hot air balloon this evening, they will immediatey run after it and we will have to start over again from scratch!

Yeah, popcorn and Obama-aid sounds like just the thing. :o)

Nash,

You really believe that this is an issue to the voter?

In the real world It's the economy and the president's performance. There is ignorance and then there is willful blindness...

Ron,

Thanks for the kind words . . . hope you have a great weekend as well.

dangerfield:

Your beloved polls say they care, so that proves it, right? :o)

No Nash, those are the people in the real world. Get out there away from your computer and talk to some real people. They care about JOBS...

As to the polls, which can be a useful tool, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows..."

Nash:

I agree with your position. We loose the House (NO landslide though), we keep the Senate and gridlock continues and we win in 2012.

I keep hearing that the republicans are now talking about jobs, but again the rhetoric does not match the deeds. How can you keep a straight face and say you want to create jobs when you oppose every bill that creates jobs and even vow to stop any future attempts to pass a bill that has anything in it that creates jobs, like the infrastructure bill that would ad 35,000 jobs for every 1 Billion invested.

As far as i can tell, the only jobs they are talking about creating are the ones that go to India and China, he!! with creating jobs here in America.

Hypocrisy again and they think we do not see it. You are correct, America is starting to wake up. I just hope we are not too late.

I still find it amazing that they can say they are talking jobs out of one side of their face while opposing bills that will do just that out of the other side of their face.

We get it dangerfield, you don't want to talk about the CoC or Karl Roves crooks it's a losing issue for republicans and you know it. We are talking about the economy you forget us Democrats can multitask unlike you republicans who can due only one thing at a time (lie). So sit back and watch the Democrats give you a butt kicking in less than three weeks. While your sitting there yelling it's the economy and jobs jobs jobs.

BTW: I see Steve didn't get any sleep again last night.

Mo, you continue to delight me with your cognitive impairment...I'm still a democrat and you're still stuck on the pundits being wrong in 2008...too bad you are wrong and it's 2010...

Mo the election is in 11 days (well that is less than three weeks. What are you on?), and by any metric you choose, by a wide margin the issue is the economy and jobs.

We will all be here on Nov. 3rd and we will see who has a firm grip on reality and who has a firm grip on Larry and Curly...:)

Historically construction has been key to improving the economy. Since the housing industry will lag for years, a WPA-type of approach makes sense, especially investing in infrustructure that is falling apart and is needed to compete in the global economy. So why won't Republicans support the infrastructure bill?

But wasn't it nice of Rupert Murdoch to come to the rescue with a nice shiny new $2 million contract to be his token "liberal"?

Yes it was Noid. And your point is?

I did think NPR was over the top on that.

While I agree that donations should not be in secret. I understand why some corporations and people want it that way. Target made a political contribution to a “group” that then distributes contributions to various candidates. The “group” made a contribution to a candidate that did not support Gay Rights. Before Target knew it, they were being boycotted and picketed and harassed by people who disagreed with the candidate. Target had not knowingly contributed to any candidate that was opposed to Gay Rights. In today’s uncivil political climate, people do not respect a person’s right to disagree with them. People are protesting in front of people’s homes, targeting their families and friends. While donating in secret should not be allowed, people should not be targeted due to their political ideas. It happens everyday on this site, just because people disagree with an opinion, people are called names and insulted.

There is a group of people in society (George Soros and others) that want to stifle civil discussion regarding the path of our country. Their hope is to make people quit voicing their opinions by calling them names and insulting them. Thankfully they are not succeeding. … yet. ALL people of all parties should be able to voice their opinion without being attacked and insulted.

Most people here attack Fox news on a daily basis, that’s fine everyone should be able to watch what they want. You say Foxnews lie, people that watch CNN say MSNBC lies, that’s all fine. People should be able to watch what they want to watch. George Soros, Moveon.Org and others have let it be known that their goal is to silence Foxnews. Good for them, let them spend all their billions trying to do that, but they haven’t succeeded yet…… The problem is once they get rid of FOXNEWS, who will they target next because they don’t like what people say on the network, will they target next MSNBC, CNN, ABC?

"Fox" is not a news organization, it is a propaganda outlet that directly financially supports the Republican Party.

It is not possible for anyone to be a journalist and work there.

Juan is where he belongs, and he is being paid handsomely to do the "corporate people's" bidding.

Case closed.

Janet: Target can make the contribution they want to make. The outcome is that they may get boycotted, and in this case, they should be boycotted. That is the outcome of the choice that they made. This is why it is important to have transparency in donations from both sides. Unless you are still stuck on the idea that it is okay for you to have your own individual boycott of GE since you have decided that they support leftist views. Sort of selective, don't you think?

Newday,

yes we understand that you wish to boycott a business that gave money to a man that thinks Exactly like President Obama.. That Marriage is between a Man and a Women...

Funny you liberals only Hate republicans that think that way.. Not your own Leaders that think that way....

Nice to see you're back for more Janet...

By chance are you going to attack me again without provocation? Or are you actually going to read the post before you reply?

No, Nashville, the case is NOT closed just because you say it is.

Your mind is closed, but that's all.

And that's why liberalism is failing, the blatant hypocrisy. The foundation of liberalism - look up the word liberty - is freedom. And you support freedom ONLY for those with whom you agree. Over the past couple of decades, liberal group think has taken over the language in this country and infested our discussions with "political correctness" to the point that when attempting to have a discussion with a liberal, it becomes impossible if a person crosses the lines of "political correctness" and group think. The race/bigot/tolerance card is immediately thrown, out of intolerance for anyone not marching the party line.

You think Fox is a propaganda machine, and therefore seek to end discussion of the issue, but you will fail.

You will fail at silencing opposing voices, and in fact the more you spew your hypocritical hatred toward anyone that disagrees? The louder the opposition will become.

Most of all, that attitude is embarrassment to the actual foundation of liberalism. It's a shame none of you group think newspeak automatons can see that.

Who else thinks that Obama will have a summit on this?

Is this not a teachable moment?

The question of who he thinks acted stupidly remains open. . .

Pragmatic:

The 10 Most Ridiculous Fox News Lies, Creative Edits, and Half-Truths
http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths

Enough of the feinged outrage about poor millionaire Juan Williams and his free speech. He is not a journalist. He is a hack. And he is free to speak, just not on NPR.

And I repeat, "Fox" is not a news organization. Period.

So like I said, case closed.

LOL. Is that the best you can do?

A left-wing website with an axe to grind, intentionally taking things out of context and using Jon Stewart as proof? From the same web site, 10 controversial issues that shouldn't be. More left-wing, if you don't agree with me shut the hell up nonsense.

http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-controversial-ideas-that-really-shouldnt-be-controversial

More "case closed"? Why no mediamatters links? Too obvious now that Soros has contributed another million to their efforts to silence critics of the left-wing agenda?

You have my pity. The echo inside your own head must be deafening.

You would have to watch it to make that determination. Somehow, I think that's not the case is it? FOX news has consistantly high ratings so somebody must be watching.

Pragmatic:

Fox lies. You can't deny it. Attacking me won't change it.

You attack the messenger, but you can't refute the message.

Hey, where's the link to that article detailing Fox's court appeal to be allowed to fib on the air as a matter of First Amendment protections?

NewDogDawning10

You are absolutely right, Target should have researched their contributions more completely. The point that you completely missed (no surprise there) is that people should not be insulted, harassed, and called names due to their political views. People who disagreed with Bush should not have been called traitors, people who disagree with Obama should not be called ignorant, hicks etc.

But as long as there are there are people like you and some of the other posters on this site, who insist on not moving forward (i.e. well the repubs called people names 5 years ago, so I can do it now and forever more) our country can’t come together and try to find some solutions to the problems.

Feisty, I didn't personally attack you, I just pointed out your lack of intelligence as you are so quick to do to others.

Somehow I linked to the wrong article above . . . take 2:

The 10 Most Ridiculous Fox News Lies, Creative Edits, and Half-Truths

http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths

Exodite Dragon:

Is this what you speak of?

The Media Can Legally Lie

"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

Had to print alot of the article here, because many folks are afraid to push links for "liberal sites" . . . they might accidentally start thinking for themselves . . . and we don't want that.

Yeah, that! That pretty much confirmed what I knew from the first moment I watched my ailing grandfather pound white Russians watching Bill O'Reily.

I'd like to see conservatives in general distance themselves from FOX. Given it's reputation as a propaganda machine, it serves them about as well as liberals denying the MSM isn't left-leaning.

...Christ. Everyone just needs to rebuke the 'news' industry.

Poor janet: your sensitivities are showing again. It is as rightful for the left to do a boycott as it is the right wing nutcases, who stand in front of Women's Health Clinics calling Doctors "murderers". Do you know what the word hypocrisy means? Because I'm pretty sure your picture is by the definition.

NewDogDawning10

The point that you completely missed (no surprise there) is that people should not be insulted, harassed, and called names due to their political views.

Another day... another heaping helping of hypocrisy from Janet! lmao

For those keeping score... she's now 0-8 but hey there's always the wild card!

See you over at the Dew Drop in there... NewDOG! ;0)))

PS: Janet - it's not my lack of intelligence that's seriously in question! You jumped all over me yesterday without even reading what I wrote. No matter how you want to twist it... any one with an IQ over 60 wouldn't confuse Jody with Janet!

Nashville Fan,

Go ahead, start listing the lies Fox News broadcasts on its cable network. Don't include its affiliates, they are usually independently owned. I'm waiting. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s a lie.

I’m not going to provide any lies MSNBC has told, because I never said they lied. I said they were a proganda machine for the democratic party. Yes I watch MSNBC because I like to hear what both political parties are saying about a certain issue. You see, I am open minded to all sides of an issue before I make a decision. So very unlike you. I particularly enjoy Larry O’Donnell. He is fair, doesn’t spew hatred and I have yet to hear him call anyone a name. He actually allows both sides of a story to be heard. Olberman on the other hand has NEVER had anyone on his show that I have watched who disagreed with him. Maddow sometimes will allow an opposing point of view.

Yes, by the way when GE owned MSNBC/NBC (during the 2008 election cycle) they did contribute to the democratic party, go to open secrets.org and check it out for yourself.

Yes, it is sad, isn't it Feisty? What is amusing about janet is that she can't recognize her own hypocrisy, even as she is engaged in it. I keep reading what she says to see if we get a coherent thought from her, but I am about to give up, it TRULY (wanted to help janet with the spelling) isn't happening. It is Dew Drop day! Always a good thing.

Janet you can't be serious, you don't think Fox lies and makes things up? Oh man you teabaggers are further out there than anyone thought.

Let me ask you a question Janet. Do Fox commentators open their mouths? If the answer is yes, then they lie.

So in reading all this I am reminded of my cunny of an ex mother in-law. She is a college professor who teaches some writing class and requires her students to cite explanations for their thoughts.

What I'm driving at:

Fox lies. You can't deny it. Attacking me won't change it.

And I repeat, "Fox" is not a news organization. Period.

Granted this is just from this thread, but there are myriad examples of the one line responses to anything with no substance to back them up.

Why can't the libbies do more than say, "this is a fact" without citing a source? Or why can't they expand an argument beyond a single statement? Mostly I've seen the same old cut and paste responses of "No, actually..." replacing republican with democrat.

A wise man once told me "I was a democrat, THEN I GREW UP".

Chef - I think that Nash - in her post above - cited her reason(s) why she thinks that Fox lies, and I concur with her assessment. I think a court case kinda proves that, don't you think?

Chef Darrell:

You can accuse me of lots of things, but not citing a source ain't one of them, mmmmmkay? :o)

For janet and pragmatic (as requested):

Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all
In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200902100019

Does that sound like an act of "journalism" to you?

I wasn't so much accusing anyone of anything as making an observation. Your posts in the thread happened to catch my eye.

Big picture, too many people on both sides act like school children when it comes to constructing a point.

Poster 1: Your party is stupid

Poster 2: Actually, you mean (replace party name) is stupid.

Poster 1: Nuh-ph

Poster 2: See, you can't even type. You're as stupid as the party you like.

And round and round it goes.

Pietro: Court cases don't prove anything. They are rulings. Facts are facts, court rulings are swayed by emotions.

Chef Darrell:

You know what I have noticed? When a conservative is losing a fact based argument, they start talking about civility.

Lying is not civil Chef.

Fox News lies.

The Chamber of Commerce funds ads filled with lies.

Why is that alright Chef?

I've posted links to just a few lies. There are more.

Are you cool with all the lying?

1. I'm not a conservative. I'm an independent who voted dem last time around and am voting rep this time.

2. I'm talking about constructing valid points, not just the one-liners that are all too rampant here. Why do you automatically make it a personal attack?

3. Both sides lie. The dem running for congress here said he voted against something before he even took office. Hell even the president lied in his campaign about things he was going to do after he took office (transparency in government anyone?)

4. I don't watch fox news.

5. I notice the lies about foreign donors and the CoC has died down, now it's about 'anonymous' donors. Are the libs shifting gears?

6. Am I cool with all the lying? No, I'm not. That's why I am an independent. I have to sift through the lies from both parties. Right now, though, I'm not cool with the liberal agenda.

To Frank's point about ratings, aside from there being different ratings -- Viewers tune into Jerry Springer, American Idol, why? For the sensationalism, even if it is made up. I hope this answers your question about why such a large number of viewers watch FOX and listen to Hate Radio.

The discussion is whether this is a good thing or bad thing for democracy. A free press that plays a watchdog role and provides facts to inform voters is a necessary part of democracy.

FOX and Hate Radio do nothing of the sort, and unlike other news organizations, openly promotes political rallies and openly makes political contributions in support of only the Republican Party. Can't you see the problem with this?

Chef Darrell:

If you don't know who gave the money to the Chamber of Commerce since the donors are anonymous, how do you know that the charge is a lie?

President Obama has one of the most transparent administrations in history. How is that a lie?

You say you don't watch Fox, which is great. But you don't have to watch Fox to examine the information that I presented showing that they are not a news organization and should not be treated as such.

In terms of not liking the "liberal agenda", I would love to know what that even means.

I will agree that no political party is immune to lying, but I am growing weary of any attempt to discuss the particular brand of brazen lies that we see on Fox News and from other "conservative" pundits being papered over with the "both sides do it" brush.

We can discuss both sides, but the topic is Fox. Why have the lies that they peddle become accepted as normal? Same for Rush Limbaugh and the rest.

Why are Republican politicians never asked to "reject and denounce" the insane ideas that these folks spread?

Well then I guess we will have to be on opposite sides of the fence.

Re the CoC, the NYT said the foreign donor claim was baseless...I'll say the claim is a lie until proven otherwise.

Back room and closed door deals does not qualify as transparency.

I said I don't watch fox news...I like Family Guy. But you make mention of examining information that YOU present...so you're then advocating taking only one viewpoint and not a critical examination? I would say fox news is as much a news organization as the huffington post.

Liberal agenda is redistribution of wealth. It is taking from me to give to someone else and saying I have to give up my "fair share".

Why has fox's peddling become the norm? I don't know, ratings maybe? People watching them? I don't watch them so I can't make an informed opinon.

As far as republican politicians rejecting and denouncing...I would guess they are letting people take a reasonable person approach. The dems seem to take one half-wit idea and squack about it until the cows come home (foreign donors comes to mind), even in the face of it being refuted by a reputable source. The reps look at something, call it stupid, then move on. It's the fringe that makes the most noise.

Why does the rest of the media accept "MSNBC" as a media organization when they are nakedly supporting Democratic politicians?

Time for NPR to be de-funded for censorship.

Only a liberal would think that firing someone for speaking the truth is legitimate.

Libs are all about "tolerance, understanding and inclusion" UNTIL someone has a differing opinion.

Then, it's censorship, denial of a job and ostracism.

In the finest fashion of all propaganda/Socialist organizations.

janet,

Does MSNBC run debunked lies 24 hours a day?

Do they directly contribute to the Democratic Party?

Have you ever watched Morning Joe-ke?

But of course, you just want to be "right" and instead of acknowledging that Fox is a propaganda outlet, you want to find a foil for your "both sides do it" routine.

List some MSNBC lies for me that didn't come from Joe Scarborough.

I'd love to see it.

If you need me too, I can fill this blog up with bald faced lies from Fox.

Nash-

You're having a "forest for the trees" moment.

Juan Williams IS the evidence.

Nash-

Honestly...

What, exactly, do you believe "Lean Forward" means?

Ok, I'll bite. When a political candidate makes a stupid gaffe, distorts the truth or uses discriminatory language toward a particular group there are varying levels of blowback against them. Perhaps they lose support and are forced to retract their sayings. After all they are running to represent we the people and it is only right for there to be consequences. That is politics it is expected, for example I for one would not want to be represented by a tea partier, republican or democrat who might happen to have racist views.

Mr. Williams on the other hand is a journalist who was actually talking to Oreilly about his personal opinions/fears. Unfortunately many people in this country have his same trepediations against Muslims when they see them in airports etc. It doesn't make it right but its there.

I'll premise this by saying, I love NPR. However, I think NPR blew this one big time. He shouldn't have been fired for expressing his opinion. Also if NPR has some special ethics agreement not to express their own opinions that their talent is supposed to abide by then the management must want left leaning Ken and Barbie talking heads.

I think the liberals on this site need to take pause and think about things as not always a win for our side etc. We should look on what was right. Firing Mr. Williams for this was not right.

After all is said and done though this is not an important issue. While I don't revel in him being fired like some do, at least it takes some emphasis away for the MSM to stop hammering me with their anti Democrat newstories.

Mixed Bag:

According to CU, "Lean Forward" means "Bend Over". . . lol!

Me?

I think it means whatever the corporation that came up with it wants it to mean.

What does that have to do with Fox News being a propaganda outlet?

Are you disputing that Fox news is a propaganda outlet?

The 10 Most Ridiculous Fox News Lies, Creative Edits, and Half-Truths

http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths

Janet- maybe because MSNBC prefaces it's programming with "the place for politics" instead of "fair and balanced"??

Speaking of NPR-

I'm obviously a lib, but don't agree WIlliams should have been fired. His comments, even if you don't agree with them, invite commentary and discussion.

Now, on the other hand, why does Huckabee and others want to shut down NPR? Wouldn't that be doing the same tihing- shutting down discussion and commentary? Hypocracy, anyone?

...lean forward so you can get tea-bagged?

Nobody is talking about shutting down NPR. What is being discussed is cutting the taxpayer funds that go to that entity, which even NPR admits is only 2% of it's budget.

For the record, I have long supported cutting that particular piece of pork from the federal budget. During the last fiscal crisis, Giuliani put the licenses for NYC's public radio stations up for sale. The stations raised the funds to buy them themselves; from all accounts, this has been a highly successful and satisfying move for them.

Taxpayers should not own entertainment businesses. Let those who choose to do so, do so.

C'mon, Nash-

Fox News is no more a propaganda outlet than MSNBC is...probably less so, actually.

Besides, the left needs to stop whining about Fox News...they created the demand for it, and are responsible for its astonishing success.

The left created the demand for a major conservative media tv outlet by saturating the airwaves with a relentless, pervasive, left-of-center world view.

Prior to the creation of Fox, the only venues for conservative political thought were talk radio, and a few print outlets like the Wall Street Journal, or small-circulation magazines like Bill Buckley's National Review.

The left had a near total monopoly in the mainstream media...CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and CNN in television, with the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times the dominant print outlets. And all pumped out non-stop liberal orthodoxy.

Fox simply couldn't fail...they had absolutely no rivals in their chosen field of competition.

So, lefties...you should try to enjoy Fox.

It's your most impressive creation.

So in summary Mixed Bag, you are not refuting the fact that Fox News is a propaganda operation.

We finally agree on something! ;o)

Nash:

Since you hate FOX so much, DON'T WATCH IT. The same can be said about MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR, and their pushing the liberal agenda, but the conservatives have 1 station with a right slant and all hell breaks loose.

I guess you and your liberal friends know what is best for all of the FOX viewers.

NPR just fired a blackman for no good reason. They have shown that they are Racist and Bigots by doing so. Their reasoning was non justified. They are Goverment and Publically funded, this is a bad example to our children. What are they going to do next, fire all the poor illegals they are staffing?

Nash-

Obviously, I wasn't clear enough...and since I prefer to express my views personally, rather than have you do it for me, I'll try again:

The Fox News television network skews right, editorially.

All of the other major television news networks, to varying degrees, skew left, editorially.

Fox News operation is no more a propaganda operation than CBS News, ABC News, CNN, or NBC News.

And MSNBC is less a real "news" organization, as opposed to an "opinion" organization, than any of them.

That is my summary, Nash.

soldier1:

Another option is that Fox could stop lying.

Has you considered that?

Nash: How's this for an option? The media in general stops treating the news like a massive op-ed piece with explosions and pretty graphics.

And an even better option is to simply ignore outlets like fox and msnbc..have you considered that?

I have no trouble avoiding both...

Mixed Bag:

So tellling lies is equivalent to "skewing right editorially"?

"Fox News and the New York Post reported completely unsubstantiated rumors that Obama was raised in a Muslim madrasah."

-------------
"When the false "death panel" rumors started in August of 2009, Fox News reported on a supposed, "death book" by the Veterans Health Administration. In lieu of actual reporting, they fanned the death panel flames by promoting a number of falsehoods that would have been cleared up had they actually read the thing."

------------------------

"Fox News edits Obama's statements makes it seem as if he wants health care "like in the European countries." This is not what he says at all, he repeats a question he is asked and goes on to say that it is not what he wants."

http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths

Exodite Dragon:

Sounds good to me.

dangerfield:

Your attempts of lumping in MSNBC with Fox are not working with me. Fox lies. MSNBC does not lie. There is the difference.

I believe you're right on target at 13/18, ED, which is why so many miss what should be obvious in this. Juan was maintaining a relationship with Fox that called for him to speak on opinion. That's a fundamental breach of what traditionally passed for journalistic ethics. He was warned by his employer on multiple occasions but continued to violate the terms of his employment with NPR. Juan was terminated for compromising his ability to seen as an unbiased reporter. It's a simple violation of company policy.

He also hasn't been censored. Did NPR prevent him from saying anything? Does NPR have any ability to tell Fox what he can and can't say?

Company policy or not, I find something terribly disturbing about the idea that a journalist can't state his or her candid opinion without the ban-hammer falling on their heads.

...though that is a quandary. Maintaining an unbiased stance to retain one's position by sacrificing your right to express how you feel? Knowing NPR's stance now I can see where they're coming from, but man, what a toughie. Oy.

Nashville, if FOX isn't a news channel, then why are their ratings so high, much more than the other major networks? It's a good thing to have a network offer differing opinions. As for juan williams, while I often disagree with him, I do listen to his opinions to attempt to understand the liberal concept of the world.

You should also attempt to have an open mind of opposing views.

Mixed Bag....its the first time I wish I could have voted more than once. Well said. You notice Nash didn't deny MSNBC is a liberal propaganda machine. Check and mate.

Paul,

Great point . . . let me rectify that.

MSNBC is not a liberal propaganda machine.

If you disagree, post the proof.

Now, can you say the same thing about Fox?

safecracker:

So you think that if something gets high ratings then that means its true?

Well alrighty then.

No way I can refute that logic.

You win.

"MSNBC is not a liberal propaganda machine."

Oh my.

Forest for the trees, Nash...

Forest for the trees.

You honestly can't see it, can you...?

dangerfield-

I take the opposite tack, and watch fair amounts of each...with the emphasis on MSNBC.

I enjoy considering viewpoints diametrically opposed to my own...I want to know what the left is thinking. It's was a little tough getting past the mean-spiritedness of this venue, but I've adjusted now that I know what to expect.

I sure wouldn't be here as often as I am otherwise.

Nash,

I consider them both worthless, therefore equal, and don't watch either. You are a devoted viewer and a "fan" of MSNBC...and so a little biased...

To those who don't watch either they have come to represent the same thing...bias, not truth, not lies, just bias and spin. They are two cable channels with no more lofty goal than ratings and ad revenue. Don't you think defending either CORPORATE entity would seem to call many of your recent posts into question?

Exodite - I think that whole Juan Williams flap proves one thing - either you be a journalist (which NPR was paying Juan to be) or be a pundit and profess your opinion (as Fox was paying Juan to be).

You cannot do both.

So, Juan made his choice, and I hope he is happy about it.

As far as NPR is concerned, I think that they want to maintain their journalistic integrity, and having someone who is a pundit probably violated that (it seems so in this case).

Personally, I could care less what happens. Fox took care of Juan, and now Juan can say whatever he wants without having to worry abut it.

All the rest of this 'chatter' is just that.

MB,

And that is your prerogative...

When I want news and opposing viewpoints, I generally read. The only news programs I watch on TV are the NewsHour, Washington Week and sometimes the McLaughlin Group..

I am not claiming any moral superiority here, as I have been accused of that before, just a limited amount of time and my personal preference. There are probably worthwhile programs on other networks besides PBS, but I don't know of them.

The simple fact that people here debate the merits of the two doppelgangers like Yankee fans vs Red Sox fans is a good reason to avoid both IMO...

I just think they are info-tainment and not legitimate news outlets and when I want entertainment on TV, Boardwalk Empire is more my taste

Give me Nucky over Keith, Bill-O, Rachel (and I don't know any of the other names) any day...

dangerfield:

I accept information from anywhere. And then I check to see if I can independently verify what they say.

Pretty simple, no?

You can call my posts into question if you want, but I back up what I say with facts. Not somebody else's opinion, not with polls, but with facts.

Of course, you are free to draw your own conclusions.

But it is noteworthy that no one is willing to say that Fox News does not lie.

Because they do.

So, Pietro-

NPR employee Mara Liasson also appears occasionally on Fox News to represent a left-of-center viewpoint as part of a roundtable discussion.

Would you advocate for her dismissal as well?

A little more political "cleansing" would be appropriate...even desirable?

Mixed Bag:

I guess Mara can decide if she wants to be a millionaire or a journalist, huh?

Nash,

Don't you think defending either CORPORATE entity would seem to call many of your recent posts into question?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't mean that I am calling your posts into question...it is the intellectual incongruity of defending one decidedly corporate entity over another that weakens your argument about "corporate media"...you are calling your own previous posts into question...

I am not defending MSNBC. . . there is no fiercer critic of the corporate owned media in all its forms than me.

But, MSNBC was brought into this discussion as a shield for Fox News.

And I have presented evidence that Fox is not "news".

Instead of dealing with that fact, folks want to deflect or talk globally about "the media".

The topic is Fox and their lies.

Not defending MSNBC.

dangerfield-

Love Nucky (oh man, does Steve Buscemi nail a character) and the gang in Atlantic City as well...

Gotta tell ya though...the vibe on the McLaughlin Group is often as "circus-like" as anything you'll encounter on either Fox or MSNBC.

Hmmm...that's probably why I like it too.

Must be all the yelling...you can't go wrong when you put Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift in the same room!

Lol.

Washington Week is just smart lefties talking to other smart lefties...too "one-note" for me.

As for Newshour...well I go back to when it was Robert McNeil's "The MacNeil Report". Jim Lehrer was just a hired gun then. Eventually, MacNeil gave his pal equal booking...wise move. Still...good, down-the-middle reporting. The "gold standard", if you will.

Unfortunately...most of the public wants something else.

Nash-

Why exclude independent left-of-center viewpoints from Fox News?

You'll only turn it into a right-wing version of MSNBC.

MB,

I had not heard before that ALL other news skews left; but reading it from you makes me wonder if Stephen Colbert has been 'right' all along?

Do facts REALLY have a Liberal Bias? It would certainly appear so.

If you honestly believe that facts have a liberal bias, Clara...the upside is that you have unlimited potential for intellectual growth.

The downside...?

Don't ask.

NPR employee Mara Liasson also appears occasionally on Fox News to represent a left-of-center viewpoint as part of a roundtable discussion.

Would you advocate for her dismissal as well?

A little more political "cleansing" would be appropriate...even desirable?

I see you are back to your old tricks with the nuanced arguments, Mixed Bag.

It is pretty obvious to me that NPR wants to maintain what they feel is their journalistic integrity. Seeing Juan Williams on FOX all the time would give an impression that NPR is condoning what Juan says.

I maintain that you are either a journalist or you are a pundit. You CANNOT be a journalist for one news organisation (NPR) and a pundit on another organisation that have opposing views and NOT have people thinking that one 'endorses' the other even if that is not the case.

I do not know Mara Liasson, so I will not comment on what she does (or doesn't do) on her own time, but my OPINION would depend on what she is doing when she does appear on FOX. Is she a pundit or a journalist?

The focus of this issue is Juan Williams. Now that Juan is a FOX pundit, does it REALLY matter, Mixed Bag?

Of course it matters, Pietro.

Mara Liasson still has a job with NPR.

Think it matters to her?

Wouldn't it matter to you...if you were her?

How so Janet? Are MSNBC anchors (like Sean Hannity) or commentators (like Glenn Beck) promoting, sponsoring, even speaking at Democratic rallies? Has MSNBC given political contributions to only Democratic candidates?

If you claim so, please provide evidence.

Also, the reason Dan Rather lost his job is because he did not meet journalistic standards of his news agency. In addition, if something is reported in error, MSNBC anchors air a correction.

You will rarely if ever see FOX retract misinformation or fire a reporter for failure to do proper homework. Heck, you will rarely see an opposing view from a guest because the guest will be shut down. These things are far beyond any bias of other news agencies.

How many of the people who are upset that Juan Williams lost his job were upset when Bill Maher, Phil Donahue, and Helen Thomas lost their jobs. They were just expressing their opinions, right? The First Amendment still exists for them, right?

Of course it matters, Pietro.

Mara Liasson still has a job with NPR.

Think it matters to her?

Wouldn't it matter to you...if you were her?

So, Mixed bag, here we are comparing apples to oranges. You have NO IDEA what deal Mara has with NPR or with FOX. Is it the same deal that Juan Williams got with FOX? You don't know. Neither do I.

Until you do, then we can talk about if it is fair or not.

The focus of this post is about Juan Williams. Juan is now a FOX pundit. So does it REALLY matter what Lara's deal is with NPR/FOX when Juan is the one we are discussing?

This nuanced argument of yours is played out, Mixed bag.

Tell you what I do know, Pietro...

Juan Williams had already been working for several years at Fox as a political contributor when he was hired by NPR.

Then, he worked for NPR for more than 10 years while continuing his work as a Fox contributor.

Ten years, Pietro. They knew who he was and what he did at Fox when they hired him.

It was reported by Politico and others last year that Mara Liasson was told by NPR executives that Fox programming had become too partisan, and they asked her to view Fox programming for 30 days. Liasson complied, and reported that at far as she was concerned there was no significant change in Fox's programming, and that she would continue to appear there. That tells me something about her contract.

We'll see what happens going forward.

I found it interesting that on "Hardball" Chris Matthews and guests Eugene Robinson and Michelle Barnard all agreed that NPR acted inappropriately.

I wonder who will have the decency to follow suit.

MB

Oh for Pete's sake! Are you the only one on this blog that is allowed to be snarky? Once I invoked Colbert - you HAD to know I was being sarcastic. I know you aren't dumb, so really? Did you MISS that one completely?

Lighten up,...You've got 11 more days, if you don't control your breathing you are at risk of stroking out.

No one's willing to volunteer that they're upset about Juan Williams AND were upset when Liberals lost their jobs for bucking the Conservative line, eh? That really doesn't come as a surprise.