PDA

View Full Version : Gotta love this new congress.


augustashark
11-09-2007, 03:18 PM
I know some of you will say "look at the source", but I did some of my own research and every point he makes is spot on. Looks like we did more harm then good last November.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010843

Preacher
11-09-2007, 03:25 PM
I know some of you will say "look at the source", but I did some of my own research and every point he makes is spot on. Looks like we did more harm then good last November.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010843

I think the dem party will be surprised this election cycle. The problem is, the rep. party will take that as a "mandate" and keep doing what they are doing... and the dems will win again the next cycle.

Oh, where is FDR or Ronald Reagan when you true leaders?

TroysBadDawg
11-09-2007, 04:00 PM
Oh Preacher I would support you to run. We need some honest people in Washington.

Even if your a Steelers fan, nobody's perfect. Now Jesus would have been a Browns fan, he loved the under dog.

Is Peroit still alive?

Mosca
11-09-2007, 04:39 PM
They are full of empty rhetoric and afraid to act. What a dissapointment they have been, to all of us.

Atlanta Dan
11-09-2007, 04:58 PM
They are full of empty rhetoric and afraid to act. What a dissapointment they have been, to all of us.

As posters who have been around here for a while know, I am no fan of W but the Democrat Congress is so afraid of being portrayed as "soft on terrorism" they act like Charlie Brown knowing Lucy is going to pull the football away if they try to kick it and are afraid to do anything. Suffice it to say I do not see Hillary Clinton as any bold agent of reform.

Of course all politicians answer to their corporate masters, as evidenced by NY Senators Schumer and Clinton refusing to support Wall Street hedge fund operators' earnings being taxed as ordinary income at 33% rather than the lower 15% for capital gains. This link is to an article on Schumer opposing any tax change on this issue after receiving a campaign contribution (aka bribe) from a hedge fund manager

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110602313.html?nav=rss_email/components

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

But augustashark , I do consider the source of the article

A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.

Rove is so detached from reality I can only assume he does not know that epitaph can go on his tombstone.

The peerless Peggy Noonan sums up the problems with both parties and the Dems in particular with these 2 column excerpts:

For a few years now I've thought the problem for the Democrats in general but for Mrs. Clinton in particular is not that America is against tax increases. They've seen eight years of big spending, of wars, of spiraling entitlements. They've driven by the mansions of the megarich and have no sympathy for hedge fund/movie producer/cosmetics empire heirs. They sense the system is rigged toward the heavily protected. They sense this because they're not stupid.

The problem for Mrs. Clinton is not that people sense she will raise taxes. It's that they don't think she'll raise them on the real and truly rich. The rich are her friends. They contribute to her, dine with her, have access to her. They have an army of accountants. They're protected even from her.

But she can stick it to others, and in the way of modern liberalism for roughly half a century now one suspects she'll define affluence down. That she would hike taxes on people who make $150,000 a year.

But those "rich"--people who make $200,000 and have two kids and a mortgage and pay local and state taxes in, say, New Jersey--they don't see themselves as rich. Because they're not. They're already carrying too much of the freight.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010810

I don't think Mrs. Clinton is the exemplar of a generation, she is the exemplar of a quadrant within a generation, and it is the quadrant the rest of us of that generation do not like. They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned. They went on to become investment bankers and politicians and enjoy wealth, power or both.

Mr. Obama should go after them, not a generation but a type, the smug and entitled. No one really likes them.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

augustashark
11-10-2007, 03:29 AM
I think the dem party will be surprised this election cycle. The problem is, the rep. party will take that as a "mandate" and keep doing what they are doing... and the dems will win again the next cycle.

Oh, where is FDR or Ronald Reagan when you true leaders?


Now that would be one heck of a ticket.

Elvis
11-10-2007, 12:03 PM
First of all... how many of you have children in this forrum? Anyone except for the very high class folks would not a agree with Bush about our Childrens' Health Care. There is No Middle Class folks anymore and that is the reason this country is going straight to Hell. All the rich folks are getting richer while the poor folks are getting poorer. The rich folks get the tax breaks and us real working folks have to pay more..... what is up with that?
George Bush decided to start a war for absolutely no reason other than he just wanted the oil over there.. George Bush will go down as one of the Worst Ever Presidents in the US. Check your stats... under Bush in his rein as our President he has responsibility for 1/3 of the US's debt all time!!!
For a man that calls himself a Christian is Wrong... I guess Jesus would have given all the money to the rich folks too .... what do you think?..... I DOUBT IT!!!

ShutDown24
11-10-2007, 12:23 PM
First of all... how many of you have children in this forrum? Anyone except for the very high class folks would not a agree with Bush about our Childrens' Health Care. There is No Middle Class folks anymore and that is the reason this country is going straight to Hell. All the rich folks are getting richer while the poor folks are getting poorer. The rich folks get the tax breaks and us real working folks have to pay more..... what is up with that?
George Bush decided to start a war for absolutely no reason other than he just wanted the oil over there.. George Bush will go down as one of the Worst Ever Presidents in the US. Check your stats... under Bush in his rein as our President he has responsibility for 1/3 of the US's debt all time!!!
For a man that calls himself a Christian is Wrong... I guess Jesus would have given all the money to the rich folks too .... what do you think?..... I DOUBT IT!!!

I don't love Bush, but you take you’re biased to an extreme. Since the democrats have regained power in this government, there has been NO improvement whatsoever. Looking at the presidential candidates for this upcoming election, the first of which I will be eligible to vote in, I may not even do so. Clinton flip flops as much as John Kerry did, Obama doesn't know which country is which and the media coverage is so democrat based that I hardly can be informed about the Republican candidates.

I will say this, between Hillary and Barack this past year, they’ve done as much image damage to the US as Bush has. If I had to choose between the two it would be a land slide win for Mr. Obama, at least he has the balls to commit to something. (Or any at all, at least so far)

If some of you think it’s bad now, wait until the next gen president gets into office.

Lynn Swann 4 prez .

Atlanta Dan
11-10-2007, 12:43 PM
the media coverage is so democrat based that I hardly can be informed about the Republican candidates.

I guess your cable company does not carry Fox News?:smile:

steveironcity
11-10-2007, 04:02 PM
First of all... how many of you have children in this forrum? Anyone except for the very high class folks would not a agree with Bush about our Childrens' Health Care. There is No Middle Class folks anymore and that is the reason this country is going straight to Hell. All the rich folks are getting richer while the poor folks are getting poorer. The rich folks get the tax breaks and us real working folks have to pay more..... what is up with that?
George Bush decided to start a war for absolutely no reason other than he just wanted the oil over there.. George Bush will go down as one of the Worst Ever Presidents in the US. Check your stats... under Bush in his rein as our President he has responsibility for 1/3 of the US's debt all time!!!
For a man that calls himself a Christian is Wrong... I guess Jesus would have given all the money to the rich folks too .... what do you think?..... I DOUBT IT!!!

WOW There is no middle class? I guess im poor then cause im damn sure not rich. I made about 30 thousand dollars. My dad never made over 40,000, is he rich?

Black@Gold Forever32
11-10-2007, 04:21 PM
I guess your cable company does not carry Fox News?:smile:

:toofunny: I was thinking the same thing.....The Fox Noise Network is so right wing its not even funny.....

Preacher
11-10-2007, 06:00 PM
:toofunny: I was thinking the same thing.....The Fox Noise Network is so right wing its not even funny.....

Funny... Fox news is right wing... CNN/MSNBC is left wing,

blah blah blah....

everyone has their bias... it is just hilarious to see how everyone sees bias in THE OTHER SIDE... but never in their own.

cubanstogie
11-10-2007, 06:26 PM
Fox news is the only reliable source. I say Bill O'reilly for president. I know he leans to the right, but always gives cons and libs a fair shake. He holds the liberal judges who let sex offenders out with soft sentences accountable. What would you libs out there have said about WWII. Let Hitler go ahead and take over all of Europe and kill millions more people because you don't like war.

cubanstogie
11-10-2007, 06:27 PM
Funny... Fox news is right wing... CNN/MSNBC is left wing,

blah blah blah....

everyone has their bias... it is just hilarious to see how everyone sees bias in THE OTHER SIDE... but never in their own.

I know I am biased I hate liberals.

SteelCityMan786
11-10-2007, 06:27 PM
Fox news is the only reliable source. I say Bill O'reilly for president. I know he leans to the right, but always gives cons and libs a fair shake. He holds the liberal judges who let sex offenders out with soft sentences accountable. What would you libs out there have said about WWII. Let Hitler go ahead and take over all of Europe and kill millions more people because you don't like war.

One more reason I like the more moderate with a little bit leaning in each direction networks.

Preacher
11-10-2007, 06:31 PM
Fox news is the only reliable source. I say Bill O'reilly for president. I know he leans to the right, but always gives cons and libs a fair shake. He holds the liberal judges who let sex offenders out with soft sentences accountable. What would you libs out there have said about WWII. Let Hitler go ahead and take over all of Europe and kill millions more people because you don't like war.

this is the kind of thing that really is beginning to tick me off about politics.

The fact is... both the conservatives and liberals want the same thing... they just go about it in different ways.

Republicans... seems to want to have more, smaller wars to avoid a massive devastating war like WWI or WWII. The problem is, how do we know which wars are necessary?

Democrats... Would prefer to stay out of war unless it is absolutely necessary, but the problem is, those wars become massive and devastating because of the time spent avoiding them. How much life could have been spared by going to war years earlier?

In the end, they both want to avoid massive loss of life in war... they just have different ways of going about it.

GBMelBlount
11-10-2007, 06:31 PM
[B][I][SIZE=2]

[QUOTE]All the rich folks are getting richer while the poor folks are getting poorer.

All Americans have access to the same opportunities. And I Think the majority of millionaires are not college educated. So I think anyone can do anything they put their mind too and work hard at. I look at the other options & I'll take freedom and capitalism.


The rich folks get the tax breaks and us real working folks have to pay more..... what is up with that?

75% of Americans pay only 16% of the federal taxes. So I don't see the problem here.


George Bush decided to start a war for absolutely no reason other than he just wanted the oil over there..

I am so glad he did that because our gas prices are so low now. Imagine if he hadn't gone to war for the oil. I bet we'd be paying over $3per gallon!


For a man that calls himself a Christian is Wrong... I guess Jesus would have given all the money to the rich folks too .... what do you think?...

I'm not sure what money he gives to rich people. I know the "poor" get a helluvalot. IMO for the most part money is not given to the rich, they earn it through hard work. I have never spited the vast majority who are more successful than me. I admire them for the most part. IMO if someone isn't happy with where they are at in their life or career, this is the best country to allow someone to do something about it.

Atlanta Dan
11-10-2007, 06:45 PM
One more reason I like the more moderate with a little bit leaning in each direction networks.

IMO the 3 cable sort of news networks (the broadcast networks and their 22 minutes of evening news are pretty much irrelevant except for a catastrophic story or election night returns) got caught up in ratings at the same time the Internet reached critical mass.

Since a lot of cable news now consists of talking heads shoutfests, Britney's custody battle, and why Anna Nicole died, I have drifted back to mostly getting news from print sources (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, some Economist and Drudge Report for links).

Given the diversity of opinions here I would be interested in hearing where posters go for news.

GBMelBlount
11-10-2007, 06:48 PM
IMO the 3 cable sort of news networks (the broadcast networks and their 22 minutes of evening news are pretty much irrelevant except for a catastrophic story or election night returns) got caught up in ratings at the same time the Internet reached critical mass.

Since a lot of cable news now consists of talking heads shoutfests, Britney's custody battle, and why Anna Nicole died, I have drifted back to mostly getting news from print sources (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, some Economist and Drudge Report for links).

Given the diversity of opinions here I would be interested in hearing where posters go for news.

TMZ.com

revefsreleets
11-10-2007, 07:27 PM
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...78808786575124

Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.

Related Topics: Media & Culture
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."
In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it. Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.

Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.

revefsreleets
11-10-2007, 07:30 PM
I believe I read another study that actually concluded that Fox News was still slightly LEFT of what the majority of the US actually considered moderate.

Personally, I read my news. TV is pretty much a joke, and, no offense, I consider people who get their news from TV sheeples.

Preacher
11-10-2007, 07:39 PM
IMO the 3 cable sort of news networks (the broadcast networks and their 22 minutes of evening news are pretty much irrelevant except for a catastrophic story or election night returns) got caught up in ratings at the same time the Internet reached critical mass.

Since a lot of cable news now consists of talking heads shoutfests, Britney's custody battle, and why Anna Nicole died, I have drifted back to mostly getting news from print sources (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, some Economist and Drudge Report for links).

Given the diversity of opinions here I would be interested in hearing where posters go for news.

Excellent question.

For me, I normally go to drudge for the links... then follow the links to other stories.

Whenever there is something big... I will flip between all the news channels. My idea is that if both left and right leaning groups are reporting the story... It is a legitamate story (to a degree). Then I look for similarities within the stories, and those similarities are where I find the real nuggets of truth.

Atlanta Dan
11-10-2007, 07:51 PM
I believe I read another study that actually concluded that Fox News was still slightly LEFT of what the majority of the US actually considered moderate..

Certainly not doubting your source but :jawdrop:

A lot of the "anti-GOP" reporting may be anti-Bush reporting, which is not too surprising when the incumbent President has been mired with approval ratings in the low 30s - I suppose the argument can be made that it is the media coverage that drives the approval ratings.

Preacher
11-10-2007, 07:56 PM
Certainly not doubting your source but :jawdrop:

A lot of the "anti-GOP" reporting may be anti-Bush reporting, which is not too surprising when the incumbent President has been mired with approval ratings in the low 30s - I suppose the argument can be made that it is the media coverage that drives the approval ratings.

Yep... that is the whole chicken/egg argument.

stlrtruck
11-10-2007, 11:14 PM
I'm sure they are just waiting for the presidency to change over too befor they make any contributions to the reforms for this country - oh wait, nevermind I forgot (for a moment only) that they're politicians and they all LIE! Democrat, Republican, or whatever - they all LIE and it seems that they've lost all interest in maintaining the United States the way it's been.

They want to appease everyone but please no one! Our country was founded on certain principles and they want to change those so everyone can feel welcomed here - from illegal immigrants to terrorists!

I think it's time that a new wave of politician stand up. Ones that are honest, understand the people of this country and their overall needs for safety, and the freedom to pursue happiness!

Maybe it's time for the average person to now run against these so called politicians!

With a new party called the American party. Guidelines require that representatives of this party do not have legal degrees or have served in any government high office in previous experience. They must not have any ties to large corporate companies and in no way can anyone in their family lineage have played any roles in state or federal government.

So I guess maybe it's time to research the requirements to start a new party and have it recognized on ballots.