Michael Moore vs. Wall Street....

Translation: I agree with a lot of Rush's hype and drivel. I don't agree with Moore's hype and drivel.

To me, it's mostly hype and drivel, whether it is "liberal" or "conservative".

Rush's "hype and drivel" tends to be backed up with evidence. Moore's "hype and drivel" tends to either be outright lies, or skewed 'statistics' with logical leaps unsupported by anything but the fruity conspiracy left.
 
Werbung:
Rush's "hype and drivel" tends to be backed up with evidence. Moore's "hype and drivel" tends to either be outright lies, or skewed 'statistics' with logical leaps unsupported by anything but the fruity conspiracy left.

There are grains of truth in what either of them says. In Rush's expressed fear of the so called "fairness doctrine", for example, he correctly says that ex president Clinton was for it, but fails to mention that now president Obama is against it. In the case of Michael Moore, in his "Bowling for Columbine," correctly states that the US has more gun murders than other advanced countries, while making the unfounded and ridiculous statement that the cause is "white America's fear of black America."

Both of them have a habit of making a whole load of bricks out of one handful of straw.
 
There are grains of truth in what either of them says. In Rush's expressed fear of the so called "fairness doctrine", for example, he correctly says that ex president Clinton was for it, but fails to mention that now president Obama is against it. In the case of Michael Moore, in his "Bowling for Columbine," correctly states that the US has more gun murders than other advanced countries, while making the unfounded and ridiculous statement that the cause is "white America's fear of black America."

Both of them have a habit of making a whole load of bricks out of one handful of straw.

So if the fairness doctrine comes and is voted in, at that point will you accept that obama is for it but probably not as stupid as congress democrats by bragging about it?
 
So if the fairness doctrine comes and is voted in, at that point will you accept that obama is for it but probably not as stupid as congress democrats by bragging about it?

Yes, if it is voted in, and if Obama doesn't veto it, then and only then will I concede that he is lying about being against it. Until then, I for one will continue to believe that the rants about the fairness doctrine coming out of right wing radio are simply bids for attention.

Want to make a bet on whether it passes, and becomes law?
 
Yes, if it is voted in, and if Obama doesn't veto it, then and only then will I concede that he is lying about being against it. Until then, I for one will continue to believe that the rants about the fairness doctrine coming out of right wing radio are simply bids for attention.

Want to make a bet on whether it passes, and becomes law?

I am not sure it will pass, I know the hard core liberal dems want it, and without a single republican they can pass it in the house. They only need a couple of Rino's to pass it in the senate.

How many of the dems in the senate and house are hard core libs is something I dont know.

How about a bet that they try? but we have to define try by something

I say they try by bringing it up and getting a feel for how well they can fair in a vote.

Do you think if congress could get a bill to obama, he would seriously veto it?
 
Yeah.....it's lookin' like Mike is gonna get a little help, alright!!!

:D

"I am in the middle of shooting my next movie and I am looking for a few brave people who work on Wall Street or in the financial industryhttp://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/02/13/michael-moores-next-film-to-target-wall-street/ to come forward and share with me what they know."

"Three years before the housing market crash, Paul Bishop says he warned his superiors at World Savings - the nation's second largest savings and loan company - that many of the mortgages they were granting were misleading and predatory."

Gee.....it's gonna be interesting, to see if ACORN is mentioned!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:p
 
There are grains of truth in what either of them says. In Rush's expressed fear of the so called "fairness doctrine", for example, he correctly says that ex president Clinton was for it, but fails to mention that now president Obama is against it. In the case of Michael Moore, in his "Bowling for Columbine," correctly states that the US has more gun murders than other advanced countries, while making the unfounded and ridiculous statement that the cause is "white America's fear of black America."

Both of them have a habit of making a whole load of bricks out of one handful of straw.

Really... you think Obama is against it. Perhaps Obama is against the return of the old policy, but he is most clearly in favor of controlling media. Read from his own site:
Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.

To me, that reads more control over the media. How exactly is the federal government going to "clairfy the public interest obligations" and "promote... diverse viewpoints", unless by federal control?

Obama has pushed for other types of controls, like local government control of stations deemed to not fit the needs of the community. In other words, Obama might not directly attack radio stations, but he will do it. No doubt in my mind. Rush is right.
 
I am not sure it will pass, I know the hard core liberal dems want it, and without a single republican they can pass it in the house. They only need a couple of Rino's to pass it in the senate.

How many of the dems in the senate and house are hard core libs is something I dont know.

How about a bet that they try? but we have to define try by something

I say they try by bringing it up and getting a feel for how well they can fair in a vote.

Do you think if congress could get a bill to obama, he would seriously veto it?

I'm not going to go so far as to say that the most far left ideologues won't try it, but that they won't succeed if they do try.

I would expect Obama to veto it, yes. That is another reason why it isn't going to pass: The Congressional Democrats won't want a showdown with a Democratic president. If they couldn't pass it during the Clinton Administration, despite Clinton's support of the measure, it is unlikely in the extreme that they will be able to do so now.

As for Andy's link:

Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation’s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.

There is a big difference between supporting diversity in media ownership and trying to dictate what that media presents to the public.

Wouldn't diversity of media ownership tend to give more people more of a voice? It seems to me that it would. Why wouldn't the right wingers want more diversity of ownership if they truly believe that the current media has a left slant to it?

No, I still think that the moguls of rant radio are simply using this issue to create a reaction in their listeners. There is no way that Obama, or anyone else is going to shut them down.

Even if one day the legislature did vote it in, and even if a future president did sign it into law, the Supreme Court would no doubt have a lot to say about curtailing the first Amendment. If it didn't then I'd be the first in line saying that we've created a dictatorship.
 
I'm not going to go so far as to say that the most far left ideologues won't try it, but that they won't succeed if they do try.

I would expect Obama to veto it, yes. That is another reason why it isn't going to pass: The Congressional Democrats won't want a showdown with a Democratic president. If they couldn't pass it during the Clinton Administration, despite Clinton's support of the measure, it is unlikely in the extreme that they will be able to do so now.

As for Andy's link:



There is a big difference between supporting diversity in media ownership and trying to dictate what that media presents to the public.

Wouldn't diversity of media ownership tend to give more people more of a voice? It seems to me that it would. Why wouldn't the right wingers want more diversity of ownership if they truly believe that the current media has a left slant to it?

No, I still think that the moguls of rant radio are simply using this issue to create a reaction in their listeners. There is no way that Obama, or anyone else is going to shut them down.

Even if one day the legislature did vote it in, and even if a future president did sign it into law, the Supreme Court would no doubt have a lot to say about curtailing the first Amendment. If it didn't then I'd be the first in line saying that we've created a dictatorship.


Ok,

how about this

if it passes and obama does not veto it

you have to call him the socialist pig from hell and say in big BOLD LETTERS

I WAS WRONG


if it passes and obama does veto it

Ill say that I am a conservative pig from hell

and I will say in big BOLD LETTERS

I WAS WRONG

deal ??
 
<Searching....> <Searching....> <Searching....>

NOPE!!!!

No references to ACORN!!!!

:rolleyes:

"Bishop's story is a rare inside look at forces that tore the economy apart, as seen by a plain-spoken loan salesman who is now suing World Savings, claiming that he was fired for telling executives what they didn't want to hear.

"I definitely talked to him about Enron. I said, 'We're sitting on an Enron.' This is…bigger than Enron. I mean, we’re doing four billion a month in loans. If housing drops, housing value drops, people start to default, you know? This is a nightmare. These people will not survive it," Bishop told Pelley.

Bishop was a mortgage salesman at World Savings San Francisco Loan Origination Center. He'd been a top salesman at IBM and spent years as a stock broker. Most everywhere he went, he had a reputation for speaking his mind and ruffling feathers. He joined World in 2002, in part, because of its history.

Maeve-Elyse Brown, a lawyer for a non-profit group working to save homeowners from foreclosure, says Betty Townes' actual income was about $1,875, but that the income written on her loan application was over $4,000.

Asked who did that, Brown told Pelley, "The interviewer that's listed is a staff person for World, for World Savings, according to the loan documents."

"What does that tell you?" Pelley asked.

"Looks like whoever typed up this document put in the number that they thought was the right number to get the loan approved," Brown said.

"The term was 'packaged.' It had to be packaged correctly when it got to the underwriter," Bishop told Pelley.

Bishop says a story like Betty's was common at his former office.

He says facts were manipulated on some loan documents to get past company underwriters who approved the loans. "You know, let's not say this. Let's delete these items that they're probably not gonna check on. Let's add this. Let's just move it around."

"Packaging the loan meant modifying [the loan]…to make sure it would pass the underwriters' inspection?" Pelley asked.

"Correct. It was one grand wink-wink, nod-nod," Bishop said."

Just more o' that ol' "conservative"-magic of Allowing The Marketplace To Regulate Itself!!
 
Ok,

how about this

if it passes and obama does not veto it

you have to call him the socialist pig from hell and say in big BOLD LETTERS

I WAS WRONG


if it passes and obama does veto it

Ill say that I am a conservative pig from hell

and I will say in big BOLD LETTERS

I WAS WRONG


deal ??


Deal.
 
Werbung:
can we add one more thing you have to do?

I was thinking about it and I have to say something bad about myself and all you have to do is say something bad about the egg head

can we add that you have to say your sorry you voted for him or something???

LOL

Sure. If the so called "Fairness Doctrine" passes, and Obama doesn't veto it, I'll post an abject apology for having voted for him. Not only that, I'll mean it, too.

And, if the Supreme Court upholds it, I'll most likely emigrate to a country that still has freedom of speech.
 
Back
Top