Ron 10 #176 January 28, 2010 Quote I done spelt it dat way on porpoise.. considerin the audience agin. Sure ya did..... That is why only that word was wrong Just can't admit when you screw up huh? It also goes to show your powers of observation suck. You are more concerned with throwing your insults than actually knowing what is going on, or participating in any real discussions.... This last post of yours just supports that AGAIN, and AGAIN, AGAIN, and AGAIN. PS... Just shows your level of education and your level of maturity when you can't spell an insult."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #177 January 28, 2010 QuoteThe problem lies in that there are "sides" to news media. FOX is blatant about it, and they're good at it. CNN is just as bad. The problem is when people only complain about one sides spin."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #178 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote Um, no - that's the candidate making that statement, not Fox. Um, no -that's Dick Morris on Hannity. Ok - still not FOX doing it but someone being interviewed. QuoteQuotePutting up pictures that imply financial prosperity for you if Brown gets elected and deliberately hacking up Coakley's statements, while not necessarily "fundraising" could certainly be considered "stumping". QuoteI'm sure the other networks did the same for Coakley, as well. I'm not. Given where your 'analysis' of Fox came from, I'm unsurprised. QuoteQuoteA certain ad comparing Brown to the Nazis comes to mind. That was an ad that was paid for externally, by either Coakley or a supporter. Not promotion by the network itself. Where did that run by the way? Was it local or national? Just curious. It's in pretty bad taste for anything off the blogosphere. Don't know the distribution, just heard about the ad.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #179 January 28, 2010 Quote Quote I done spelt it dat way on porpoise.. considerin the audience agin. Sure ya did..... That is why only that word was wrong Just can't admit when you screw up huh? It also goes to show your powers of observation suck. You are more concerned with throwing your insults than actually knowing what is going on, or participating in any real discussions.... This last post of yours just supports that AGAIN, and AGAIN, AGAIN, and AGAIN. PS... Just shows your level of education and your level of maturity when you can't spell an insult. DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE it really galls you don't it..... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Iz spelt it that waa .... cause dats the waa iz be wantin to spelt it..And here U iz tryin so hard to be Mr Perfect.. just like the old days in the Can o pee NAZI threads....... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #180 January 28, 2010 Quote If not, was it because the other networks weren't willing to have her on? Or because Coakley couldn't be bothered to go on national TV for a race she was certain to win? I don't know. I didn't really pay that much attention to the race. I'm a Virginian. But from what I heard it's possible that she lost, not because of the FOX enabled "grass roots" support, but simply because she ran a lousy campaign. We just lost a Governor's race in a similar fashion. The centrist Democratic candidate just wasn't very exciting, not to look at or to listen to, even though his message (on things like transportation bills etc.) was more specific and complete. But to address your other point, I don't like the networks campaigning for candidates and I don't want outside corporations doing it either, for any candidate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #181 January 28, 2010 Quote CNN : Wolf Blitzer - 4pm Lou Dobbs - 7pm Campbell Brown - 8pm Larry King - 9pm Anderson Cooper - 10pm You have to remove Lou Dobbs from this line up. The Leftists at the Celebrity News Network did not like Lou's stance on illegal immigration. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #182 January 28, 2010 Quote Ok - still not FOX doing it but someone being interviewed.[/reply Right, and who chooses the list of interviewees? But again, I'm not surprised. And this goes right to the heart of the thread. Mega corp media and mega corps are the ones steering the debate. Throw out left or right for a moment and think about it. Who made the Mass election such a big story? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #183 January 28, 2010 Quote You have to remove Lou Dobbs from this line up. The Leftists at the Celebrity News Network did not like Lou's stance on illegal immigration. Stance? It was more like a vein popping, convulsing, frothing at the mouth, speaking in tongues sort of display Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #184 January 28, 2010 Quote I'm a Virginian. Hey, that's great. Don't let it get you down. When you find the right girl, it'll be even more special with her. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #185 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote I'm a Virginian. Hey, that's great. Don't let it get you down. When you find the right girl, it'll be even more special with her. Thanks, you always know how to say the right things. I'm feeling better already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #186 January 28, 2010 Opinion piece from the NYT's. I have been following this thread and there are many statements that may not quite by grounded in any truth. QuoteThere was the president, and there were six members of the Supreme Court. The few words from the one to the others went by quickly. The president’s tone was mild compared to the animation in some other parts of the speech, and I thought he looked momentarily awkward. But maybe I was just projecting. Mr. Obama’s words were sharp, echoing his earlier criticism of the court’s decision last week in the Citizens United case to strike down the limits that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law placed on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” He urged Congress to “pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.” Nearly every president finds something to criticize about the Supreme Court, but not every one gets to do it to the justices’ faces, on national television, in the State of the Union speech. Of the six justices in the audience, three were in the majority in the 5-4 decision: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the opinion; Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.; and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Three were among the four dissenters: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Supreme Court justices usually make for an awkward sight at the State of the Union speech, because they sit stony-faced and never clap or cheer. Related The State of the Union Columns, quick takes and the editorial on the president’s 2010 national address. Commentary From Opinionator » Some members of the court dislike the exercise so much that they never attend. Justice Sotomayor’s predecessor, David H. Souter, never did. For several years, Justice Breyer attended alone. This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.” The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions. But this was a populist night and the target was irresistible. There are a variety of specific proposals floating around to address the Citizens United decision. The president offered no specifics and did not endorse any of them. Just as the decision doesn’t lend itself to a sound bite, neither do the fixes. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #187 January 28, 2010 You must be a supporter of illegal immigration. Cool that means I can walk across the border and take your job away from you? Far out ... pass the bong ... Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #188 January 28, 2010 QuoteYou must be a supporter of illegal immigration. Nope. Dobbs was losing control, on immigration and especially on the "birther" nonsense. I hope the door smacked him twice on the way out. But you're welcome to come visit. Best not make it this weekend though if you're hoping to get a jump or two in. Looks like we've got some snow coming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,994 #189 January 28, 2010 Ron, Jeanie - cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #190 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote You got me. They were fund raising and stumping for Brown. And you think only one side does it? The problem lies in that there are "sides" to news media. FOX is blatant about it, and they're good at it. Fox is good at it because: 1) they're shameless. They don't pretend to be CNN, at least not very seriously. 2) they have the right wing viewers, the ones who fear the 'liberal media' entirely to themselves. I'm a bit surprised none of the other media channels don't attempt to co-opt their crowd, rather than compete in a crowded field of left leaning outlets (figure CNN is pretty centrist, and MSNBC being the Fox opposite much further to the left). That the GOP faithful across the country sent a lot of support into this race is hardly surprising. Just as Obama supporters in CA went to battleground states like NV and FL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #191 January 28, 2010 Quote That the GOP faithful across the country sent a lot of support into this race is hardly surprising. Just as Obama supporters in CA went to battleground states like NV and FL. My take is that the states should pick their own leaders. I saw plenty of opportunities to send money to Coakely. And while I'd prefer that she won, it's none of my business so I kept the checkbook closed. I'd prefer that others would do the same with my state in return. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #192 January 28, 2010 QuoteMy take is that the states should pick their own leaders. I saw plenty of opportunities to send money to Coakely. And while I'd prefer that she won, it's none of my business so I kept the checkbook closed. I'd prefer that others would do the same with my state in return. And that's the "state" version of what my issue is with multi-nationals getting involved with our national elections. Corporations "live" in every state. A person only resides in one. I've never thought it was my business to tell Florida voters how they should feel about a candidate and I certainly don't have the financial wherewithal to support individual candidates across all 50 states, but corporations do. It's like when the Mormon Church in Utah decided to get involved with the marriage issues in California. To me, that's just bullshit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #193 January 28, 2010 There are Mormon churches in California, too. Would you silence them as well?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #194 January 28, 2010 Quote It's like when the Mormon Church in Utah decided to get involved with the marriage issues in California. To me, that's just bullshit. It's bullshit because they enjoy tax exempt status. This should be revoked for LDS. The Catholic Church is often on the line as well. But 10% tithing for the Mormons of CA alone is still a lot of money. since CA and Texas are so firmly in their DEM/GOP camps right now, there's little reason for the residents there to keep their dollars in house. Ross Perot remains the biggest example that money doesn't overwhelm voter intelligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #195 January 28, 2010 QuoteRoss Perot remains the biggest example that money doesn't overwhelm voter intelligence. George W. Bush remains the biggest example that it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #196 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteRoss Perot remains the biggest example that money doesn't overwhelm voter intelligence. George W. Bush remains the biggest example that it does. money isn't the primary reason Bush narrowly defeated Gore. The Democrats put up plenty of money in that fight. There are scores of different reasons for that defeat, starting with the fact that Gore was a loser who couldn't win the nomination in multiple tries before becoming VP to a popular guy. No, Perot threw ungodly amounts of money and still was nothing more than a joke. Money can't promote shit. It can be effective at exposing shit about the other candidate. So let's get rid of the assholes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #197 January 29, 2010 Quote No, Perot threw ungodly amounts of money and still was nothing more than a joke. Except when he was making sense. I enjoyed having him dissect our budget publicly. I wish he had his own show called "We're paying what for WHAT?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #198 January 29, 2010 QuoteMoney can't promote shit. Quote Excuse me, there's a phone call for you on line one from a Mr. Madison Avenue, there's also a call from the folks over at Disney, they'd like to talk to you about a talentless singing group they have and on line three is a call from James Cameron, he'd like to know if you've seen his latest movie. Also, a Mr. Glenn Beck has been in the waiting room for the last hour, he'd still like to talk to you about buying some gold. Trust me, money sells quite a bit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #199 January 29, 2010 Quote Trust me, money sells quite a bit. It sells better to those who don't vote much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #200 January 29, 2010 Quote Quote Trust me, money sells quite a bit. It sells better to those who don't vote much. Wow, that is a very sharp point"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 8 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
idrankwhat 0 #183 January 28, 2010 Quote You have to remove Lou Dobbs from this line up. The Leftists at the Celebrity News Network did not like Lou's stance on illegal immigration. Stance? It was more like a vein popping, convulsing, frothing at the mouth, speaking in tongues sort of display Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #184 January 28, 2010 Quote I'm a Virginian. Hey, that's great. Don't let it get you down. When you find the right girl, it'll be even more special with her. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #185 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuote I'm a Virginian. Hey, that's great. Don't let it get you down. When you find the right girl, it'll be even more special with her. Thanks, you always know how to say the right things. I'm feeling better already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #186 January 28, 2010 Opinion piece from the NYT's. I have been following this thread and there are many statements that may not quite by grounded in any truth. QuoteThere was the president, and there were six members of the Supreme Court. The few words from the one to the others went by quickly. The president’s tone was mild compared to the animation in some other parts of the speech, and I thought he looked momentarily awkward. But maybe I was just projecting. Mr. Obama’s words were sharp, echoing his earlier criticism of the court’s decision last week in the Citizens United case to strike down the limits that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law placed on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” He urged Congress to “pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.” Nearly every president finds something to criticize about the Supreme Court, but not every one gets to do it to the justices’ faces, on national television, in the State of the Union speech. Of the six justices in the audience, three were in the majority in the 5-4 decision: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the opinion; Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.; and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Three were among the four dissenters: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Supreme Court justices usually make for an awkward sight at the State of the Union speech, because they sit stony-faced and never clap or cheer. Related The State of the Union Columns, quick takes and the editorial on the president’s 2010 national address. Commentary From Opinionator » Some members of the court dislike the exercise so much that they never attend. Justice Sotomayor’s predecessor, David H. Souter, never did. For several years, Justice Breyer attended alone. This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.” The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions. But this was a populist night and the target was irresistible. There are a variety of specific proposals floating around to address the Citizens United decision. The president offered no specifics and did not endorse any of them. Just as the decision doesn’t lend itself to a sound bite, neither do the fixes. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #187 January 28, 2010 You must be a supporter of illegal immigration. Cool that means I can walk across the border and take your job away from you? Far out ... pass the bong ... Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #188 January 28, 2010 QuoteYou must be a supporter of illegal immigration. Nope. Dobbs was losing control, on immigration and especially on the "birther" nonsense. I hope the door smacked him twice on the way out. But you're welcome to come visit. Best not make it this weekend though if you're hoping to get a jump or two in. Looks like we've got some snow coming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,994 #189 January 28, 2010 Ron, Jeanie - cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #190 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote You got me. They were fund raising and stumping for Brown. And you think only one side does it? The problem lies in that there are "sides" to news media. FOX is blatant about it, and they're good at it. Fox is good at it because: 1) they're shameless. They don't pretend to be CNN, at least not very seriously. 2) they have the right wing viewers, the ones who fear the 'liberal media' entirely to themselves. I'm a bit surprised none of the other media channels don't attempt to co-opt their crowd, rather than compete in a crowded field of left leaning outlets (figure CNN is pretty centrist, and MSNBC being the Fox opposite much further to the left). That the GOP faithful across the country sent a lot of support into this race is hardly surprising. Just as Obama supporters in CA went to battleground states like NV and FL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #191 January 28, 2010 Quote That the GOP faithful across the country sent a lot of support into this race is hardly surprising. Just as Obama supporters in CA went to battleground states like NV and FL. My take is that the states should pick their own leaders. I saw plenty of opportunities to send money to Coakely. And while I'd prefer that she won, it's none of my business so I kept the checkbook closed. I'd prefer that others would do the same with my state in return. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #192 January 28, 2010 QuoteMy take is that the states should pick their own leaders. I saw plenty of opportunities to send money to Coakely. And while I'd prefer that she won, it's none of my business so I kept the checkbook closed. I'd prefer that others would do the same with my state in return. And that's the "state" version of what my issue is with multi-nationals getting involved with our national elections. Corporations "live" in every state. A person only resides in one. I've never thought it was my business to tell Florida voters how they should feel about a candidate and I certainly don't have the financial wherewithal to support individual candidates across all 50 states, but corporations do. It's like when the Mormon Church in Utah decided to get involved with the marriage issues in California. To me, that's just bullshit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #193 January 28, 2010 There are Mormon churches in California, too. Would you silence them as well?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #194 January 28, 2010 Quote It's like when the Mormon Church in Utah decided to get involved with the marriage issues in California. To me, that's just bullshit. It's bullshit because they enjoy tax exempt status. This should be revoked for LDS. The Catholic Church is often on the line as well. But 10% tithing for the Mormons of CA alone is still a lot of money. since CA and Texas are so firmly in their DEM/GOP camps right now, there's little reason for the residents there to keep their dollars in house. Ross Perot remains the biggest example that money doesn't overwhelm voter intelligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #195 January 28, 2010 QuoteRoss Perot remains the biggest example that money doesn't overwhelm voter intelligence. George W. Bush remains the biggest example that it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #196 January 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteRoss Perot remains the biggest example that money doesn't overwhelm voter intelligence. George W. Bush remains the biggest example that it does. money isn't the primary reason Bush narrowly defeated Gore. The Democrats put up plenty of money in that fight. There are scores of different reasons for that defeat, starting with the fact that Gore was a loser who couldn't win the nomination in multiple tries before becoming VP to a popular guy. No, Perot threw ungodly amounts of money and still was nothing more than a joke. Money can't promote shit. It can be effective at exposing shit about the other candidate. So let's get rid of the assholes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #197 January 29, 2010 Quote No, Perot threw ungodly amounts of money and still was nothing more than a joke. Except when he was making sense. I enjoyed having him dissect our budget publicly. I wish he had his own show called "We're paying what for WHAT?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #198 January 29, 2010 QuoteMoney can't promote shit. Quote Excuse me, there's a phone call for you on line one from a Mr. Madison Avenue, there's also a call from the folks over at Disney, they'd like to talk to you about a talentless singing group they have and on line three is a call from James Cameron, he'd like to know if you've seen his latest movie. Also, a Mr. Glenn Beck has been in the waiting room for the last hour, he'd still like to talk to you about buying some gold. Trust me, money sells quite a bit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #199 January 29, 2010 Quote Trust me, money sells quite a bit. It sells better to those who don't vote much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #200 January 29, 2010 Quote Quote Trust me, money sells quite a bit. It sells better to those who don't vote much. Wow, that is a very sharp point"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
