Who Said it?

[Gipper]

So Drudge digs up dirt on Clinton and the liberal media digs up dirt on Palin. That's the way things are.

No it is not the way things are.

First, NBC News (a hard left news outlet) had the Monica story and refused to run it because they love BJ Bubba. They would never do this if an R were in the WH. It makes me wonder what the MSM has on BO and refuses to report. Do you fail to comprehend the bias and the unethical nature of the lib media?

Drudge reported facts. You call it dirt. Would you prefer that Drudge buried the story too?

The medias treatment of Palin was outrageous. They did all they could to destroy her. They would NEVER do this to a liberal female politician. Most unethical and biased.

But apparently you see it differently.

 

[GenSeneca]

I hope you are exaggerating, because 17% won't pay the bills and debts.

It would if government cut spending to just 15% of the 17%.... If you thought suggesting that we lower her taxes was funny, my suggestion must have you in hysterics.

 

[Lagboltz]

No it is not the way things are.

First, NBC News (a hard left news outlet) had the Monica story and refused to run it because they love BJ Bubba. They would never do this if an R were in the WH. It makes me wonder what the MSM has on BO and refuses to report. Do you fail to comprehend the bias and the unethical nature of the lib media?

Drudge reported facts. You call it dirt. Would you prefer that Drudge buried the story too?

The medias treatment of Palin was outrageous. They did all they could to destroy her. They would NEVER do this to a liberal female politician. Most unethical and biased.

But apparently you see it differently.

I certainly agree if NBC sat on an important story that they knew was factual, shame on them. Who ever was complicit should have been fired. That was almost 15 years ago. Have they been caught since then sitting on other stories? Do you think that depth of dishonesty is a typical example of NBC?

Fox news treatment of Obama was also outrageous. Maybe not from your perspective, but it was from mine. (To be fair, I only see Fox when Jon Stewart shows clips, so it may not be typical.)

Palin to us liberals was a dingbat and dug her own grave. And yes, Stewart and other comics showed countless clips of her. I simply can't understand why Fox reveres her. H. Clinton was not a dingbat.

It's no secret that there is a difference between liberal and conservative points of views. There doesn't seem to be any hope of reconciliation.

 

[Lagboltz]

It would if government cut spending to just 15% of the 17%.... If you thought suggesting that we lower her taxes was funny, my suggestion must have you in hysterics.

Naw, no hysterics. It's just that I thought that your version of Buffet's famous statement was an amusing twist of his intent.

 

[Gipper]

I certainly agree if NBC sat on an important story that they knew was factual, shame on them. Who ever was complicit should have been fired. That was almost 15 years ago. Have they been caught since then sitting on other stories? Do you think that depth of dishonesty is a typical example of NBC?

Fox news treatment of Obama was also outrageous. Maybe not from your perspective, but it was from mine. (To be fair, I only see Fox when Jon Stewart shows clips, so it may not be typical.)

Palin to us liberals was a dingbat and dug her own grave. And yes, Stewart and other comics showed countless clips of her. I simply can't understand why Fox reveres her. H. Clinton was not a dingbat.

It's no secret that there is a difference between liberal and conservative points of views. There doesn't seem to be any hope of reconciliation.

NBC News is a hard left news outlet. They present biased news EVERY night. They have done many unethical and biased stories. Remember what they did to Zimmerman?

You say Fox News treatment of BO is outrageous then state you only see Fox on Stewart. Very silly.....

I loved the attack dog nature of the lib media when W was POTUS. They showed no respect. That is the way the media should be no matter who is president. Sadly much of the old media is on their knees for BO and any D president. Too bad you and most lefties can't see it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Naw, no hysterics. It's just that I thought that your version of Buffet's famous statement was an amusing twist of his intent.

Buffet could have voluntarily paid any amount he liked, whatever amount he thought would be "fair" for him to pay, and ask others to do the same. He has the right to use reason and convince others to follow his example. However, no individual has a "right" to impose his will onto others by force.

 

[Lagboltz]

NBC News is a hard left news outlet. They present biased news EVERY night. They have done many unethical and biased stories. Remember what they did to Zimmerman?

You say Fox News treatment of BO is outrageous then state you only see Fox on Stewart. Very silly.....

I loved the attack dog nature of the lib media when W was POTUS. They showed no respect. That is the way the media should be no matter who is president. Sadly much of the old media is on their knees for BO and any D president. Too bad you and most lefties can't see it.

I'm not going to argue about NBC because I don't remember ever seeing it. I wasn't asking about biased news, I was asking about the dishonesty of sitting on news. There is a difference between bias of editorials or pundits and bias in the handling actual news events like Lewinski.

Stewart shows lots of Fox -- mostly pundits. One show was dedicated mostly to Glen Beck. And yes it is all very silly.

From my perspective Fox has shown a great deal of disrespect to BO. Sure, I would agree that most of the media respects OB much more than W. That is reasonable from my point of view, but certainly not from your perspective.

 

[Gipper]

I'm not going to argue about NBC because I don't remember ever seeing it. I wasn't asking about biased news, I was asking about the dishonesty of sitting on news. There is a difference between bias of editorials or pundits and bias in the handling actual news events like Lewinski.

Stewart shows lots of Fox -- mostly pundits. One show was dedicated mostly to Glen Beck. And yes it is all very silly.

From my perspective Fox has shown a great deal of disrespect to BO. Sure, I would agree that most of the media respects OB much more than W. That is reasonable from my point of view, but certainly not from your perspective.

What is not reasonable from my perspective? If you stated your opinion correctly, you just agreed with me that the media treats BO much better than they treated W. This is proof of bias. No?

You claim to NEVER watch Fox and admit getting your information about them from a left wing comedian who admittedly hates Fox. Yet you persist in making conclusions about Fox News. Do you fail to comprehend how silly your opinion is? Can you specifically reference an example of their disrespecting BO? Did you dislike ALL the other networks during W's reign when they persistently disrespected him? Of course you did not.

One can't make a proper conclusion about some thing unless they research that thing. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Lagboltz]

What is not reasonable from my perspective? If you stated your opinion correctly, you just agreed with me that the media treats BO much better than they treated W. This is proof of bias. No?

You claim to NEVER watch Fox and admit getting your information about them from a left wing comedian who admittedly hates Fox. Yet you persist in making conclusions about Fox News. Do you fail to comprehend how silly your opinion is? Can you specifically reference an example of their disrespecting BO? Did you dislike ALL the other networks during W's reign when they persistently disrespected him? Of course you did not.

One can't make a proper conclusion about some thing unless they research that thing. Does that make sense to you?

No I don't think it is proof of a bias because W was a buffoon and was treated the way a buffoon should be treated. He started an unnecessary war having fake or dubious evidence of WMD development in Iraq, and the media eventually called him on that.

Stewart has loads of material on Fox idiocy. Sure he shows the worst of Fox pundits. I have no desire to watch Fox to look for it's good(?) features, where it's "fair and balanced." So I will simply remain biased by Stewart's slant.
These are clips of Stewart making fun of Obama or his administration:

Fast and Furious

Libyan embassy assassination

Makes fun of both Romney and Obama on debate

 

[Gipper]

No I don't think it is proof of a bias because W was a buffoon and was treated the way a buffoon should be treated. He started an unnecessary war having fake or dubious evidence of WMD development in Iraq, and the media eventually called him on that.

Stewart has loads of material on Fox idiocy. Sure he shows the worst of Fox pundits. I have no desire to watch Fox to look for it's good(?) features, where it's "fair and balanced." So I will simply remain biased by Stewart's slant.
These are clips of Stewart making fun of Obama or his administration:

Oh brother...you finally show your true colors. A truly partisan liberal. It is okay for the press to be biased because W was a buffoon....in your mind. You libs will never learn. I had hopes that you were not one of them.

Yes Bush was a terrible president, but so is BO. You think BO should be treated differently by the press because you like him. Do you see how we differ?

 

[Lagboltz]

Oh brother...you finally show your true colors. A truly partisan liberal. It is okay for the press to be biased because W was a buffoon....in your mind. You libs will never learn. I had hopes that you were not one of them.

Yes Bush was a terrible president, but so is BO. You think BO should be treated differently by the press because you like him. Do you see how we differ?

No I think the press should have gone after BO much more than they did or are doing. In prior posts I have already said that he should have have stopped the wars much earlier as he once promised. I understand (from the liberal press?) that Bush started the bailouts, so BO isn't entirely at fault. BO (and W) should have cut spending in many areas, but didn't. In short I am unhappy with Obama. He should have started a decline of farm, oil, and other subsidies and also military spending. One of his worse acts is supporting corn ethanol, a very wasteful process that doesn't do anything. With 10% ethanol my car mileage dropped by almost 10%. Do the math. My auto mechanic called ethanol "an inert filler." Even Scientific American ripped BO for ethanol.

 

[Dr.Who]

A conservative joke. I don't often see ones that I like. Usually they are bitter digs. I hope you are exaggerating, because 17% won't pay the bills and debts.

The revenue collected from taxation has never gone lower than a certain amount and never higher than a certain amount no matter how high or confiscatory the rates have been set. If I am not mistaken, and I am guessing a bit here, the lowest amount of revenue generated has been 17% and the highest has been 21%. The problem is and has always been spending and not how much revenue is collected. Additionally, the gov is not capable of predicting or controlling how much revenue it collects so it might as well learn to live between 17% and 21%. some wise sage here said it should set its budget as if it will collect 17% then any year in which more is collected is a bonus.

 

[Dr.Who]

(To be fair, I only see Fox when Jon Stewart shows clips, so it may not be typical.)

Palin to us liberals was a dingbat and dug her own grave. And yes, Stewart and other comics showed countless clips of her. I simply can't understand why Fox reveres her.

Since most of your exposure to Palin and Fox news is admittedly through Stewart that may explain why you can't understand what people saw in her.

 

[Lagboltz]

Since most of your exposure to Palin and Fox news is admittedly through Stewart that may explain why you can't understand what people saw in her.

Stewart and others would show actual clips from Fox. The clips spoke for themselves.

 

[dogtowner]

The revenue collected from taxation has never gone lower than a certain amount and never higher than a certain amount no matter how high or confiscatory the rates have been set. If I am not mistaken, and I am guessing a bit here, the lowest amount of revenue generated has been 17% and the highest has been 21%. The problem is and has always been spending and not how much revenue is collected. Additionally, the gov is not capable of predicting or controlling how much revenue it collects so it might as well learn to live between 17% and 21%. some wise sage here said it should set its budget as if it will collect 17% then any year in which more is collected is a bonus.

its typically on the order of 18% . its spiked temporarily to 20's but those were clear spikes. all this talk of marginal rates is just a diversion intended to keep people from realizing that the government is the bad guy.