PDA

View Full Version : Have they no shame?



Qtec
12-09-2010, 06:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LEAKED EMAIL: Fox boss caught slanting news reporting

December 09, 2010 7:31 am ET by Ben Dimiero

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

Journalists on the network's flagship news program, Special Report with Bret Baier, appear to have followed Sammon's directive in reporting on health care reform that evening.

Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have told Media Matters that Sammon uses his position as managing editor to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right. Sammon's "government option" email is the clearest evidence yet that Sammon is aggressively pushing Fox's reporting to the right -- in this case by issuing written orders to his staff.

As far back as March 2009, Fox personalities had sporadically referred to the "government option."

Two months prior to Sammon's 2009 memo, Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Sean Hannity's August 18 Fox News program. Luntz scolded Hannity for referring to the "public option" and encouraged Hannity to use "government option" instead.

Luntz argued that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," but that "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." Luntz explained that the program would be "sponsored by the government" and falsely claimed that it would also be "paid for by the government."

"You know what," Hannity replied, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"it's a great point, and from now on, I'm going to call it the government option."</span> </div></div>


Fair and balanced.

Q

eg8r
12-09-2010, 08:24 AM
There is nothing being slanted they are both the same thing and it is semantics. If you find a phrase that people latch onto then you use that phrase. Why does this very elementary level of common sense confuse you?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-09-2010, 08:56 AM
No, the right, RW news, RW pundits, REPUBLICAN Presidents, REPIGLICAN Representatives, HAVE NO SHAME!

THE LAST FAIRLY DECENT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT WAS EISENHOWER. THE LAST DECENT REPUBLICAN SENATORS AND CONGRESSPERSONS WERE GONE, BEFORE THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION BEGAN.

THEN THEY ALL BECAME REPIGLICANS.

g.

sack316
12-09-2010, 11:19 AM
Sounds a lot like Pelosi's little focus group she ran in Florida seeing if "Public Option", "Competitive Option", or "Consumer Option" sounded more appealing.

Sack

Qtec
12-09-2010, 09:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you find a phrase that people latch onto then you use that phrase. </div></div>

If you are campaigning, then yes. Are you saying its OK for Fox News to campaign for the Republicans?

Q

LWW
12-10-2010, 03:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you find a phrase that people latch onto then you use that phrase. </div></div>

If you are campaigning, then yes. Are you saying its OK for Fox News to campaign for the Republicans?

Q </div></div>

Yet you have never expressed any issue with MSNBC openly shilling for dear leader ... nor them accepting, secretly, <u><span style='font-size: 14pt'>$14,000,000,000.00</span></u> in bailout money after the election.

Why is that Snoopy?

LWW

eg8r
12-10-2010, 08:05 AM
Just because you call it campaigning does not make it so. I think it is very smart of Fox News to use phrases that their viewers understand. None of this was misleading at all.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 08:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sounds a lot like Pelosi's little focus group she ran in Florida seeing if "Public Option", "Competitive Option", or "Consumer Option" sounded more appealing.

Sack </div></div>

Nancy Pelosi does not represent herself as a NEWS source.

What is your point?

JEEZE!

G.

eg8r
12-10-2010, 08:22 AM
What is the difference? Do you think it is ok for a person running for office to slant the information? q is calling this a shameful act. I disagree and don't see a slant at all but you obviously do.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 08:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the difference? Do you think it is ok for a person running for office to slant the information? q is calling this a shameful act. I disagree and don't see a slant at all but you obviously do.

eg8r </div></div>

Your question makes absolutely no sense to me at all. NONE!

It is a totally false comparison. AGain, apples and oraanges.

Fox is a Repiglican propaganda station, owned and operated by Republican cronies, and used to spread lies and propaganda for the Grand Oil Party.

What the hell does that have to do with Nancy Pelosi?

Q's post is an excellent example of the slanted language, usage of BUZZ words, intended to manipulate the FUX, RW Viewers.

G.

Qtec
12-10-2010, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I think it is very smart of Fox News to use phrases that their viewers understand.</div></div>

Public option! Is that so difficult to understand?

As usual, you just canīt admit you are wrong. Here we have the head of Fox News telling his people to use Frank Luntz talking points and buzzwords. Straight from the mouth of the GOP word Guru to the mouths of Fox News presenters.


Q

Stretch
12-10-2010, 10:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I think it is very smart of Fox News to use phrases that their viewers understand.</div></div>

Public option! Is that so difficult to understand?

As usual, you just canīt admit you are wrong. Here we have the head of Fox News telling his people to use Frank Luntz talking points and buzzwords. Straight from the mouth of the GOP word Guru to the mouths of Fox News presenters.


Q

</div></div>

When Luntz tells the sock puppets on fox something it goes like this "when i want your opinion, i'll give it to you" St.

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I think it is very smart of Fox News to use phrases that their viewers understand.</div></div>

Public option! Is that so difficult to understand?

As usual, you just canīt admit you are wrong. Here we have the head of Fox News telling his people to use Frank Luntz talking points and buzzwords. Straight from the mouth of the GOP word Guru to the mouths of Fox News presenters.


Q

</div></div>

When Luntz tells the sock puppets on fox something it goes like this "when i want your opinion, i'll give it to you" St. </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000"> LOL, exactly. </span>

sack316
12-10-2010, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sounds a lot like Pelosi's little focus group she ran in Florida seeing if "Public Option", "Competitive Option", or "Consumer Option" sounded more appealing.

Sack </div></div>

Nancy Pelosi does not represent herself as a NEWS source.

What is your point?

JEEZE!

G. </div></div>

Actually, I'd think the trusted government officials who are trying to convince us to "buy" or "don't buy" should probably be held to a higher standard than a news source.

Also, you do realize your thought presented here would give a pass to all those many republicans you have called out on this issue, as neither do they present themselves as a news source.

Sack

LWW
12-10-2010, 11:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I think it is very smart of Fox News to use phrases that their viewers understand.</div></div>

Public option! Is that so difficult to understand?

As usual, you just canīt admit you are wrong. Here we have the head of Fox News telling his people to use Frank Luntz talking points and buzzwords. Straight from the mouth of the GOP word Guru to the mouths of Fox News presenters.


Q

</div></div>

Why don't you answer why this bothers you but MSNBC shilling for the regime in exchange for bailout money doesn't?

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 12:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sounds a lot like Pelosi's little focus group she ran in Florida seeing if "Public Option", "Competitive Option", or "Consumer Option" sounded more appealing.

Sack </div></div>

Nancy Pelosi does not represent herself as a NEWS source.

What is your point?

JEEZE!

G. </div></div>

Actually, I'd think the trusted government officials who are trying to convince us to "buy" or "don't buy" should probably be held to a higher standard than a news source.

Also, you do realize your thought presented here would give a pass to all those many republicans you have called out on this issue, as neither do they present themselves as a news source.

Sack </div></div>

Sorry Sack,
I see nothing about what Nancy Pelosi did, that compares to a propaganda station, parading as a fair and balanced news station, which is in actuality, nothing but a Republican propaganda station, which twist the facts as part of their goal.

What facts was Nancy Pelosi, twisting, and what did she do that Republicans don't do, only on a far greater scaloe, with the help of a completely right wing news media in this couontry????

And it isn't just Fox, Republicans bought up the radio stations, under Nixon, which is what most people tune into most of the time, the radio.

That's why there are so many more rightwing stations, and liberal stations. It has nothing to do with where the country stands, at all. It has to do with the right owning the media.

G.

pooltchr
12-10-2010, 01:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

And it isn't just Fox, Republicans bought up the radio stations, under Nixon, which is what most people tune into most of the time, the radio.

That's why there are so many more rightwing stations, and liberal stations. It has nothing to do with where the country stands, at all. It has to do with the right owning the media.

G.



</div></div>

Funny thing about the free market. If Soros wants to buy up some radio stations, I'm sure he could. The problem he would run into, would be finding an audience for the message he would like to put out. The left tried their hand at talk radio, and the ratings caused them to fail miserably.

It's not about owning a media outlet. It's about having a product that a large number of people want.

Seems the left doesn't have that product.
You need look no farther than MSNBC to see the proof.

Steve

eg8r
12-10-2010, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your question makes absolutely no sense to me at all. NONE!

</div></div>Wow, and that was pretty elementary. Sorry for getting you all twisted up this early in the day.

As sack mentioned people running for office should be held to even higher standards than our news media, but since that doesn't work for you this time I guess we will endure another hissy fit for a little while.

eg8r

eg8r
12-10-2010, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Public option! Is that so difficult to understand?

</div></div>Why do you want to confuse the voters? It really isn't a public option it IS a government option.

eg8r

pooltchr
12-10-2010, 02:35 PM
"Public option" is much easier to sell than "government controlled".

Steve

sack316
12-10-2010, 03:06 PM
the fact that you can somehow believe there is a discernible difference between one finding the least appealing terminology to use, and one finding the most appealing terminology to use shows there is little use in discussing this further.

Sack

Deeman3
12-10-2010, 05:23 PM
I have little trouble in admitting that Fox certainly voices more for the right, ergo, Republicans as does MSNBC for the left and the Democrats. That one is much more popular and successful is a product of presentation as well as the arguments they make to the viewing public.

That is what is so good about a free press. There is no unbiased media, only how their message is viewed by the public. I watch both. I do not watch Hannity, Maddow, Oberman or Beck. I enjoy Spitzer and his gal, Oreilly and a few on other networks but don't believe all of what any of them say. My favorite balance is the discussion group on Fox Sunday with Chis W. I find the group broad but reasonable.

Is there not enough to choose from out there that we need to limit or censor one or more of them just because we don't agree with them all the time? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

sack316
12-10-2010, 05:36 PM
Like you deeman, I watch both. And as well see the slant in both.

It's funny how you can watch an episode (from either) one night, and come on here the next morning to see what was parroted from it.

I'll usually watch at least O'reilly and Olbermann, just to see what the big debate will be the next day. One thing I've noticed is that O'Reilly will have viewpoints from both sides... he may talk over them quite a bit, but they are there and at least get in their point usually. Olbermann's guest list is always people in agreement with whatever diarrheal spew is coming out of his mouth that day. Bill O' at least gives a chance to be shown up on his own show, which happens sometimes even if he won't admit it. Keith O' just does a "here's someone who agrees with me, so I must be right".

In addition to what you mentioned, I've really started to develop a liking to Last Word with Lawrence O'donnell. Surprising, as he is an unapologetic self described socialist... but he's not afraid to stick it to either side and really grills his guests pretty good. I've seen him spin some phrases pretty good with right-sided guests, but I can't fault him cuz as soon as I turn around he's doing it to a lefty too. I hope MSNBC lets him stick around a while /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Qtec
12-11-2010, 04:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really isn't a public option it IS a government option. </div></div>

Wrong because the PUBLIC choose, not the Govt.

Q

Qtec
12-11-2010, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Public option" is much easier to sell than "government controlled".

Steve </div></div>

I will let Anthony Weiner answer that.

watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RADPnKE2Uak&feature=related)

listen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTh-Yu9RfF0&feature=channel)

Q

LWW
12-11-2010, 05:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Public option" is much easier to sell than "government controlled".

Steve </div></div>

Remember when Obama/Pelosi/Reid were pimping Obamacare as "CHOICE AND COMPETITION" ...and the left had no issue with blatant wordsmithing. Nor did they mind that every branch of American Pravda repeated it ... as they did with slavish devotion.

LWW

LWW
12-11-2010, 05:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really isn't a public option it IS a government option. </div></div>

Wrong because the PUBLIC choose, not the Govt.

Q </div></div>

What did they choose?

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-11-2010, 06:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sounds a lot like Pelosi's little focus group she ran in Florida seeing if "Public Option", "Competitive Option", or "Consumer Option" sounded more appealing.

Sack </div></div>

Nancy Pelosi does not represent herself as a NEWS source.

What is your point?

JEEZE!

G. </div></div>

Actually, I'd think the trusted government officials who are trying to convince us to "buy" or "don't buy" should probably be held to a higher standard than a news source.

Also, you do realize your thought presented here would give a pass to all those many republicans you have called out on this issue, as neither do they present themselves as a news source.

Sack </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also, you do realize your thought presented here would give a pass to all those many republicans you have called out on this issue, as neither do they present themselves as a news source.

</div></div>


[color:#990000] That was exactly my point, in the first place.

Politics, which obviously, is practiced by both sides of the isle, and often pretty damned dirty, on both sides, is one thing. Nancy Pelosi, didn't do a damn thing that Republicans don't do all of the time, themselves.

A news station, which presents itself as fair and balanced, but which is clearly promoting only one political party, is a different thing entirely. They Misrepresent themselves, by their very use of the words, fair and balanced. The lie is inherent, in their own statement, of their own by-line, Fair and Balanced, which as we all know, is a crock!

MSNBC, BTW, has both left, and right, commentators, as I have pointed out many times, three hours every morning of Joe Scarborough, bashing Democrats, with no left views presented and only DINOS like Harold the fake Dem, and Barnicle Bill, another fake Dem, Buchannon, almost always sitting right there with them.

Chris Matthews, has just as many from the right, as from the left. Rachael Maddow, the same thing, just as many Republicans, as Democratics. Keith Olbermann, presents himself as a Liberal Commentator, but does provide documentation for his views.

Do you think David Gregory, is a leftie??? Believe me, he isn't. Yet, he was NBC's choice to replace Tim Russart. Bob Woodward? He too is a Republican, has been his whole life. He is on Morning Joe, along with Pat Buchannon, constantly.

So you tell me, where are the Liberal Commentators on Fox???

What Fox does, lies outside the rhelm of Political positioning for policy, such as your example of Peolsi, as a comparison. Pelosi, is a Democratic. Is there anyone who doesn't realize that Pelosi, is a Democratic? Do not both Republicans and Democratic, do the same demn thing? Bush's us of "Food Challenged" to avoid the word hunger??? Boy, I could give you a whole Republican alternative dictgionary, for their selling words, used to slant things their way, Obamacare, is one of them.

Yet, you are trying to compare npolitics, with Fox, which presents itself as Fair and Balanced? NO COMPARISON! Fox has admitted to selling Bush's war to the public. They fear mongered this country to death, and that's what they do, every damn day, use fear and lies, to back ONE PARTY ONLY. Even if they have to use fake clips, and lie about when they were taken, to make the Tea Party, look good! LMAO!

Hence, apples and oranges. No comparison, between political presentation of a policy in it's most effective terminology, and a News organization, which is in every media, from Cable, to radio, to newpapers, to their own multi milloion dollar contributions to their party of choice, including free campaigning time for Republicans, during the election, on the air, and a Democratic Speaker OF The House, doing exactly what all of the other POLITICIANS do to sell their policies to the public, by selecting the best communications to do so.

Aside from that, each time anny representative of either party, presents their party buzz words, to sell their policies, it is up to each of us, to do the research, to determine how honest those statements are. They are not presented as Fair and Balanced, NEWS!

G.

[/color

Chopstick
12-11-2010, 07:02 AM
You and sack would probably like this show I found on Bloomberg on the weekends. It is called Intelligence Squared. It is a debate show with two members on each team. One team for the premise and one team against. It is not like a left against right show. Four intelligent, well educated, individuals having a civil debate on the issues of the day. Something you will never see around here. Each week there is a new subject like, "Is big government killing the American spirit" or "Is the Afghan war a lost cause". The audience votes on the issue at the beginning of the show and again at the end of the show. The team that changes the most minds wins the debate.

Needless to say, when they do get a far left loon on there, they get smoked badly. When you take away their ability to scream and point fingers, they find their positions impossible to defend.

Chopstick
12-11-2010, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really isn't a public option it IS a government option. </div></div>

Wrong because the PUBLIC choose, not the Govt.

Q </div></div>

They certainly chose last election as they did in the case of Air America.

Gayle in MD
12-11-2010, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You and sack would probably like this show I found on Bloomberg on the weekends. It is called Intelligence Squared. It is a debate show with two members on each team. One team for the premise and one team against. It is not like a left against right show. Four intelligent, well educated, individuals having a civil debate on the issues of the day. Something you will never see around here. Each week there is a new subject like, "Is big government killing the American spirit" or "Is the Afghan war a lost cause". The audience votes on the issue at the beginning of the show and again at the end of the show. The team that changes the most minds wins the debate.

Needless to say, when they do get a far left loon on there, they get smoked badly. When you take away their ability to scream and point fingers, they find their positions impossible to defend. </div></div>

LOL, cute, but it was years of Republican deregulatory, free market aezlots, who put this country into a debt ditch.

There can be no rational discussions with the right, because they want to deny the results of their free market zealous views on economics, deregulatory, market solves everything, F-ed up economy.

No oversight, at all, from the Bush Administration, and Alan Greenspan, after clear warnings of what was coming, and failure of the SEC, under Bush, and a Republoloican majority, to do their jobs.

Bush's Ownership society, a Republican majority, and Wall Street's PURE GREED and corruption!

The RW policies are what put this country into the ditch!

pooltchr
12-11-2010, 08:21 AM
You, along with Obama, seem to hold a deep hatred for our free market system. Of course, it was that same free market system that allowed the US to become the greatest and most powerful country in history.

Yep! I see where you are coming from.

You just hate success!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

sack316
12-11-2010, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nancy Pelosi, didn't do a damn thing that Republicans don't do all of the time, themselves.

</div></div>

Glad you realize that finally.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-11-2010, 10:57 AM
I've always realized that, Sack, you just don't pay attention.

As I have written here hundreds of times over the years, I am AGAINST REPUBLICAN POLICIES!

How many times do I have to say it???

I never said that Democratics aren't politicians, as well as Republicans, only that I do not approve of Republicans because of their POLICIES!

G.

pooltchr
12-11-2010, 11:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never said that Democratics aren't politicians, as well as Republicans, only that I do not approve of Republicans because of their POLICIES!

G. </div></div>

What a crock!! You have taken personal attacks against Republicans to the limit. You will attack them for what they do in their personal lives, what their kids do on Dancing with the Stars, or any other excuse you can come up with to villify them.

Don't try to act so sanctimonius now...you've already proved what you are against. It's not Republican policies...it's Republicans in general.

At least be big enough to admit where you really stand!

Steve

eg8r
12-11-2010, 12:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nancy Pelosi, didn't do a damn thing that Republicans don't do all of the time, themselves.

</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glad you realize that finally.

</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've always realized that, Sack, you just don't pay attention.

As I have written here hundreds of times over the years, I am AGAINST REPUBLICAN POLICIES!


</div></div>Wow, so gayle says Pelosi acts like Republicans, sack acts surprised because this is different than anything gayle has said in the past, and then gayle responds saying she has said this hundreds of times over the past year.

I am confused, can someone, using the full power of the websites search engine, please prove gayle correct. It shouldn't take too long but I did not find any examples. I am just holding my breath that she was honest this time.

eg8r &lt;~~~hopes they hurry because I cannot hold my breath for too long.

LWW
12-11-2010, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It shouldn't take too long but I did not find any examples. </div></div>

And we all know the reason for that.

LWW

pooltchr
12-11-2010, 03:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I am just holding my breath that she was honest this time.

eg8r &lt;~~~hopes they hurry because I cannot hold my breath for too long. </div></div>

Turning blue yet? Waiting for Gayle to prove that she was being honest?

Ed.....your sense of humor is refreshing!

Steve

sack316
12-11-2010, 10:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, so gayle says Pelosi acts like Republicans, sack acts surprised because this is different than anything gayle has said in the past, and then gayle responds saying she has said this hundreds of times over the past year.

I am confused, can someone, using the full power of the websites search engine, please prove gayle correct. It shouldn't take too long but I did not find any examples. I am just holding my breath that she was honest this time.

eg8r &lt;~~~hopes they hurry because I cannot hold my breath for too long. </div></div>

Actually Ed, using my wayback machine I once discovered this gem:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in March of 2003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats and Republicans lie equally. Both parties have members that lie. Now, that is a fact friend. </div></div>

I believe her when she says that she has always realized that. She's smart enough to know the truth about both sides. It's just extremely few and far between that she'll admit it or point to the presence of something negative from the left. But c'mon Ed, she's said as much twice in nearly 8 years, how could you not realize this? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

eg8r
12-12-2010, 12:04 AM
LOL, I knew it would be easy when she said that she has said it over a hundred times. Maybe 2 times in 8 years is equivalent to a hundred in lefty math. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

sack316
12-12-2010, 12:08 AM
Would make more sense on the jobs saved/created numbers /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Of note, the inverse of this operation is also effective when publishing estimated costs of policies.

Sack

eg8r
12-12-2010, 12:10 AM
LOL, I just cannot imagine how far off, on the short side, their numbers will be over the HC bill. They started changing them almost immediately. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
12-12-2010, 12:11 AM
How about their math when they get excited about creating a million or so short term jobs and increasing UE at the same time.

eg8r

sack316
12-12-2010, 12:14 AM
Yep, more jobs were created/saved AND more people lost work all at the same time. And people think Criss Angel is good at magic!

Sack

Qtec
12-12-2010, 12:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There can be no rational discussions with the right, because they want to deny the results... </div></div>

After 8 years of Bush tax cuts to the rich the job growth was almost zero. Poverty increased and more of the wealth went to a smaller select few. At the same time the Nat Debt increased by $6 Trillion. ie 6,000,000,000,000 Dollars.

Now they just want the tax cuts for the rich. No economic or social reasons for it just, 'give us the money or we bring Govt to a stand still'.

Its a bit like a 3 yr old holding their breathe when they don't get what they want.


Anyway, this thread was about how Fox is a working arm of the GOP and what Fox said before about there is a difference between Fox News [ the real news ] and Hannity etc being BS.

Even the 'real news' is slanted, from the top down. The email proves it.,,like we didn't already know.

Q

LWW
12-12-2010, 05:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There can be no rational discussions with the right, because they want to deny the results... </div></div>

After 8 years of Bush tax cuts to the rich the job growth was almost zero. Poverty increased and more of the wealth went to a smaller select few. At the same time the Nat Debt increased by $6 Trillion. ie 6,000,000,000,000 Dollars.

Q </div></div>

Absolute Bravo Sierra and you know it.

1 - Under the first 5 years of the Bush tax cuts we had employment that was so high that the created jobs were primarily illegals and thus not reported ... IOW every American who wanted a job had a job.

2 - From the time the reps first budget went into effect following the 1994 takeover until the dems took over following their 2006 victory the US federal debt increased from $4,973,982,900,709.39 to $9,007,653,372,262.48. That equates to an abysmal average deficit of $336,139,205,962.76 per year.

3 - The far left had their collectivist knickers all in a wad over how this was an absolutely destructive level of debt. I agreed with that, but I knew the leftists actually didn't as the y were using the debt as just another prop for their agitprop theater.

4 - From the time the democrooks took over congress the debt increased from $9,007,653,372,262.48 to $13,561,623,030,891.70, or a total of $4,553,969,658,629.22 in additional debt ... they created 112% as much debt in 3 years as the republichickens did in 12 years. Their average debt was 451% of the average republichicken deficit and it came out at a blistering $1,517,989,886,209.74 per year.

5 - Dear leader is lying when he lays blame elsewhere as he voted yea in the senate, and signed off as POTUS, on these massive democrook deficits ... and in fact petitioned for them to be even larger.

6 - The far left now has their knickers in a collectivist wad over the idea that anyone would dare to point out the truth of these numbers.

7 - As bad as the numbers are for the democrooks ... the reality is even worse. 2011 will also be a completely huge deficit and the democrooks have done immense damage to an already struggling economy by shirking their constitutional duty to provide a 2011 budget and to settle the 2011 tax rates by now. Instead they acted as the abject cowards that they are and ran from their duties during an election year.

8 - These numbers have all been posted before, usually in response to your promoting the leftist mythology as you just did, meaning that you either know the truth and willingly ignore it ... or run from the truth when it's presented.

9 - Believing the myth doesn't make the myth true, repeating the myth doesn't make the myth true. Myths are, by definition, myths.

LWW

Qtec
12-12-2010, 05:18 AM
Does the President have a veto?

Q...........nobody forced GW Bush to sign any bill.

Qtec
12-12-2010, 05:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 1 - Under the first 5 years of the Bush tax cuts we had employment that was so high that the created jobs were primarily illegals and thus not reported ... IOW every American who wanted a job had a job.
</div></div>

How many times do you have to be told???
When you make ridiculous claims like that, provide a link.... If you can!!

You never addressed any of my facts.

Q

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nancy Pelosi, didn't do a damn thing that Republicans don't do all of the time, themselves.

</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glad you realize that finally.

</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've always realized that, Sack, you just don't pay attention.

As I have written here hundreds of times over the years, I am AGAINST REPUBLICAN POLICIES!


</div></div>Wow, so gayle says Pelosi acts like Republicans, sack acts surprised because this is different than anything gayle has said in the past, and then gayle responds saying she has said this hundreds of times over the past year.

I am confused, can someone, using the full power of the websites search engine, please prove gayle correct. It shouldn't take too long but I did not find any examples. I am just holding my breath that she was honest this time.

eg8r &lt;~~~hopes they hurry because I cannot hold my breath for too long. </div></div>

Why don't you and Sack, give up on your main reason for posting on this site, which is continually trying to prove I am a hypocrite, when you both have demonstrated your own blind partisanship, all along.

I've seen you both deny plenty of facts, posted here, with charts, and documented proof.

If either of you thinks I give a damn about your chidish games, believe me, I don't. You both destroy every thread, with your PERSONAL SLURS, and partisan BS.

If you want to discuss the subject of the thread, fine, do so. If your goal is just more petty bashing and accusations, then go elsewhere with your BS. It's old, and boring, IMO.


Grow up!

LWW
12-12-2010, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does the President have a veto?

Q...........nobody forced GW Bush to sign any bill.

</div></div>

And I've never defended Bush for not using veto power ... he should have.

In fact, I've stated that Bush was also a leftist who wanted a fascist economy.

The difference between us is that I can see that the choice between the Bush regime's budgets and the Obama regimes budgets are like deciding between dropping a 3 pound hammer on my foot or dropping a 15 pound hammer on my foot.

Both will do damage, but one is certainly worse than the other.

OTOH, you see the 3 pound hammer as destructive to your foot and the 15 lb hammer as divine.

LWW

LWW
12-12-2010, 07:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why don't you and Sack, give up on your main reason for posting on this site, which is continualkly trying to prove I am a hypocrite</div></div>

I concur. Your posts speak well on the subject.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, so gayle says Pelosi acts like Republicans, sack acts surprised because this is different than anything gayle has said in the past, and then gayle responds saying she has said this hundreds of times over the past year.

I am confused, can someone, using the full power of the websites search engine, please prove gayle correct. It shouldn't take too long but I did not find any examples. I am just holding my breath that she was honest this time.

eg8r &lt;~~~hopes they hurry because I cannot hold my breath for too long. </div></div>

Actually Ed, using my wayback machine I once discovered this gem:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in March of 2003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats and Republicans lie equally. Both parties have members that lie. Now, that is a fact friend. </div></div>

I believe her when she says that she has always realized that. She's smart enough to know the truth about both sides. It's just extremely few and far between that she'll admit it or point to the presence of something negative from the left. But c'mon Ed, she's said as much twice in nearly 8 years, how could you not realize this? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack </div></div>

Personally, Sack, I think you are acting like a petty little rightie. When and if the Democratic party, uses shock and fear, to foster launching a war on lies, against a country which never attacked us on our shores, nor even threatened to attack us, here, you'll hear plenty of outrage from me.

It's not my fault, that Bush broke loads of laws, trashed the Constitution, spied on Americans, Broke the FISA Law, committed treason, and lied the country into a war, for his oil cronies.

My outrage over the Bush Administration? That isn't blind partisanship, on my part, it's blind partisanship, on YOUR part, since I don't recall any outrage from you, at all.


Find me a time in my lifetime, when Democratics outed a covert secret agent, and then the President, let the guy go, after he committed treason, and obstruction of justice, and lied to Federal Prosecuters.

You can paint my positions as partisan, if that is what floats your little lopsided boat, but you lose credibility, after years on here showing no outrage over the most illegal, immoral dishonest administration in American History, which prosecuted more long lasting damages against our country, than ANY previous administration in history.

Before this president was elected, people from all over the political spectrum, left and right, economists and foreign policy experts, were saying that the next president would be inheriting the worst legacy since Roosevelt took office.

While it's convenient for you sheep from the right, to ignore that FACT, and bash president Obama, blaming him for the whole mess that Bush left, blameing him for not recoverying faster from Bush's NO WIN F-ups, while denying government studies, from non partisan sources, I for one, do not intend to continue to play into your petty little games, by contributing to your constant thwarting pf every thread, with your petty foolishness.

You bring everything down to a personal level, instead of remaining on the subject. You do it all the time....so in the future, you won't be getting any responses from me, when you go totally off the subject, to pick at me.

It's getting very OLD. AND BORING.

G.

sack316
12-12-2010, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You can paint my positions as partisan, if that is what floats your little lopsided boat...
</div></div>

I don't have to paint you as partisan, you have said as much YOURSELF on several occasions on here!

As far as my lopsided little boat... at least I take the time in several of my commentaries on things to add the little caveat that "both sides do this" or "neither side is innocent" or something to that effect. In the midst of my dem bashing I don't praise republicans for their failed policies, either. You know darn well I think both sides suck, and have said as much on numerous occasions.

You should pay more attention and reexamine what partisanship is "In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party..... referring to those who wholly support their party's policies"

Who does that fit more accurately? While many of my idealogical views are indeed conservative, I'm not so naive that I don't realize most republican policies of recent history don't fit the definition of "conservative". Were I blinded by partisanship, this would not be the case. Were I blinded by partisanship, I may make such a commentary as "I'd never vote for a democrat... NEVER".

On a side note, FWIW, it may surprise you that the last time I took a political ideology test I actually wound up with a result of "moderately liberal"! While I don't necessarily agree with the results, I understand it. I "agree" with many more conservative viewpoints, but the liberal viewpoints that I do side with I tend to "strongly agree".

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 08:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You can paint my positions as partisan, if that is what floats your little lopsided boat...
</div></div>

I don't have to paint you as partisan, you have said as much YOURSELF on several occasions on here!

As far as my lopsided little boat... at least I take the time in several of my commentaries on things to add the little caveat that "both sides do this" or "neither side is innocent" or something to that effect.
<span style="color: #990000">LOL, who cares? </span>

In the midst of my dem bashing I don't praise republicans for their failed policies, either. You know darn well I think both sides suck, and have said as much on numerous occasions.

<span style="color: #990000"> Who cares?</span>

<span style="color: #990000">I am not really interested in making a study of your posting style, thank you. My interest, unlike yours, is usually the topic of the thread I'm reading, not in dragging up the same ol'RW hypocrite charges that you and Ed, thrive on. </span>

You should pay more attention and reexamine what partisanship is "In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party..... referring to those who wholly support their party's policies"

<span style="color: #990000">then I am not a partisan. I've written, I am against any surge in Afghanistan.

I am against this weeks events, giving tax cuts to the top.

By and olarge, I am far more against Republican policies, than Democratic policies, hence, I vote for Democratic candidates. I don't have to justify my votes, to you, or anyone else.</span>

<span style="color: #990000">I certainly don't need definitions from you, on political subjects. I don't notice you picking at LWW"s posts, or anyone else on here.

Your tactics of personal focus on picking apart everything I post, speak for themselves. Is THAT a partisan effort?</span>

Who does that fit more accurately?

<span style="color: #990000">I don't support all Democratic policies, and have written before, many times, Republicans are worse, period! I have never said anything any different, other than, I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN! AND I WON'T! But then, I am a good deal older than you are, and I've seen a good deal more of Republican damage, than you have...</span>

While many of my idealogical views are indeed conservative, I'm not so naive that I don't realize most republican policies of recent history don't fit the definition of "conservative". Were I blinded by partisanship, this would not be the case. Were I blinded by partisanship, I may make such a commentary as "I'd never vote for a democrat... NEVER".

<span style="color: #990000">Guess what. I don't really give a *(&^^%, if you think I'm a blind partisan, or not! Do you actually think I have concerns about what a kid that is younger than my daughter, thinks, about what I think????

BWA HA HA HA....beleive me, Sack, I couldn't care less. I'm just tired of your non stop onslaught of diverting every damned thread over to your petty little pot shot games... </span>

On a side note, FWIW, it may surprise you that the last time I took a political ideology test I actually wound up with a result of "moderately liberal"!


<span style="color: #990000">Well, bully for you! You're such a perfect person, a perfect voter, and so incredibly broad minded, which I suppose is why you target ONLY me for your games...go on with yourself, I was around watching Republican Policies fail and ruin my country, before you were even a glilnt in your Da Da's eye.

</span>

While I don't necessarily agree with the results, I understand it. I "agree" with many more conservative viewpoints, but the liberal viewpoints that I do side with I tend to "strongly agree".

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Again....So what? Who cares?

I'm not the one who jumps into every damned thread, solely fo0r the purpose of writing condescending, pot shot, insults, at you, Sack. I don't do that. YOU and ED do that...so I'm just giving you a heads up, I'm tired of the silly, petty status quo, from both of you.

If you want to stay on the subject of the thread, fine. When you make the decision to turn it into yet another pot shot, at me, I won't be responding.

It's old, and it's boring. Find a new school yard game. Or find a new leftie to stalk with silly, petty little imaginary "Points" that add nothing to the conversation, of any value, at all...I'm tired of being your target.


Stick to the subjectr of the thread, instead of trying to divert it to yet another attempt to discredit me...I don't have to defend myself to you, or anyone else on here.


G.</span>

sack316
12-12-2010, 09:49 AM
Well well then, fair enough. While I certainly appreciated your apologetic PM last time it got like this, just save your breath when you feel the need this time around.

My posting style, tone, and content has been pretty much the same over these years on here. One day I'm one of the good posters IYO, and another day I'm one of the bad ones IYO. And yet you'll still believe it is ME that is the problem /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

As far as your sarcastic commentary on my "perfection"... I agree with you in being sarcastic about it. I know I'm far from perfect. I know my views and opinions will often times be flawed. I know that I don't know everything, and I know there are other opinions other than my own that are quite often more valid. And that's the big difference between you and me I guess.

And also, thanks for throwing age into the equation (and please remember it is you that brought that up). Out of respect, I won't divulge some of the things you have told me in private. But you just go ahead and weigh those things in comparison to a 31 year old "kid" with his pick of the litter of postgraduate studies that meets Rhodes standards. It would be ignorant of me to say that weighing those things together makes my opinions somehow more valuable or valid than yours, wouldn't it? And also rather intolerant, no? Just remember, that's pretty well what you did. Bet it made you feel good too.

Sack

LWW
12-12-2010, 09:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 1 - Under the first 5 years of the Bush tax cuts we had employment that was so high that the created jobs were primarily illegals and thus not reported ... IOW every American who wanted a job had a job.
</div></div>

How many times do you have to be told???
When you make ridiculous claims like that, provide a link.... If you can!!

Q

</div></div>

You truly are an oblivious to reality aren't you.

But, even though the data has been posted here for you on numerous instances .... (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4% for the USA.

From January, 2001 to January, 2007 ... when the democrooks took control of congress ... US UE was as low as 3.8% (4/00) and never higher than 6.1% (09/03) and closed at 4.6%.

Since the democrooks took control (01/07) until their policies took effect (01/08) the US UE rate rose from 4.6% to 5%.

After that it rose to 6.6% when Obama was elected ... up to 7.7% on his coronation ... and to 9.4% within 100 days ... and to 10.1% in 9 months ... never to drop[ below 9.5%.

This where you claim that just because I can prove what I said doesn't mean I can prove what I said.

See you next time you promote your myth and deny reality.

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2007-01&EndYear=2010-10&submit1=Create+Report

OH DEAR! (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/50/2086120.pdf)
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/Snoopy.jpg

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 10:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Well well then, fair enough. While I certainly appreciated your apologetic PM last time it got like this, just save your breath when you feel the need this time around.

My posting style, tone, and content has been pretty much the same over these years on here. One day I'm one of the good posters IYO, and another day I'm one of the bad ones IYO. And yet you'll still believe it is ME that is the problem /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<span style="color: #990000">You turn it into personal BS every time, not me. </span>

As far as your sarcastic commentary on my "perfection"... I agree with you in being sarcastic about it. I know I'm far from perfect. I know my views and opinions will often times be flawed. I know that I don't know everything, and I know there are other opinions other than my own that are quite often more valid. And that's the big difference between you and me I guess.


<span style="color: #990000">LOL, go read all of your own sarcastic remarks, in this thread! It's BORING! </span>

And also, thanks for throwing age into the equation (and please remember it is you that brought that up). Out of respect, I won't divulge some of the things you have told me in private.

<span style="color: #990000">Very poor behavior, on your part, Sack. I never discuss, t all, ny private discussions, nor evver even refer to them.... </span>


But you just go ahead and weigh those things in comparison to a 31 year old "kid" with his pick of the litter of postgraduate studies that meets Rhodes standards. It would be ignorant of me to say that weighing those things together makes my opinions somehow more valuable or valid than yours, wouldn't it? And also rather intolerant, no? Just remember, that's pretty well what you did. Bet it made you feel good too.

<span style="color: #990000">Lookj, you get on here and make every effort you can, to p-aint me with your big brush, as a hypocrite, then you cop an attitude, when I tell you that your opinions, are not the opinions of someone who has lived in this country for the last sixty=five years?

LOL, hey, it's intention, Sack, and I don't have a habit of launching into digging through the archives, to try to prove you wrong, nor of following up you posts, consistantly, with the sole intent of painting you as a hypocrite. </span>

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">FYI, I never discuss, nor reveal, anything at all, about private messages, Sack.

It's very simple, really, stay on the subject of the thread, period. Stop turning discusions, into sarcastic, personal accusations. Can you do that? You're very intelligent, but the constant, sarcastic pot shots, and accusations of hypocrisy, away from the subject of the threads, are getting old.

G. </span>

sack316
12-12-2010, 10:39 AM
G, I sent you a PM. Let me know if you got it.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 10:48 AM
Nope, don't see it at all.

G.

sack316
12-12-2010, 10:50 AM
wondered about that, as you never replied to a PM I sent you a little while back either. Will email you

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 11:14 AM
Didn't get any since our last pleasant pm discussion.

G.

LWW
12-12-2010, 12:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #990000">It's very simple, really, stay on the subject of the thread, period. Stop turning discusions, into sarcastic, personal accusations. Can you do that? You're very intelligent, but the constant, sarcastic pot shots, and accusations of hypocrisy, away from the subject of the threads, are getting old.

G. </span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'> and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."</span>
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>-The Gospel of Saint Matthew
Chapter seven verse 1 thru 5-</span></div></div>

LWW

eg8r
12-12-2010, 07:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, Sack, I think you are acting like a petty little rightie. When and if the Democratic party, uses shock and fear, to foster launching a war on lies, against a country which never attacked us on our shores, nor even threatened to attack us, here, you'll hear plenty of outrage from me.
</div></div>He actually goes out on a limb and defends you by showing one example of the "hundreds" you propose exist and you call him petty. Jeesh!!!

eg8r

Qtec
12-12-2010, 08:35 PM
By your link, the rate was 3.9 under Clinton in 2000. 7 years later, when the Dems had control it was the rate was 4.6.

link (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2000-12&EndYear=2010-10&submit1=Create+Report)
Q

LWW
12-13-2010, 03:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By your link, the rate was 3.9 under Clinton in 2000. 7 years later, when the Dems had control it was the rate was 4.6.

link (http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2000-12&EndYear=2010-10&submit1=Create+Report)
Q </div></div>

Yes ... full employment under an R congress ... 9.5%+ under a D congress.

Thanks for finally getting it.

LWW

eg8r
12-13-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> when you both have demonstrated your own blind partisanship, all along.

</div></div>This coming from the person that said she knows Pelosi acts like the Republicans she chastises but gives Pelosi a free pass. This coming from the person that says she will never vote Republican.

If you think you were commenting on the subject of the thread then by default so was I since I copied sack's comments and yours.

eg8r