American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Keith Olbermann reads the Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters published on You Tube.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature=player_embedded[/url]

Something to think about.

Copy & Paste it.

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123; 419615]Keith Olbermann reads the Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters published on You Tube.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature=player_embedded[/url]

Something to think about.

Copy & Paste it.

Exon[/QUOTE]So are we to assume you agree with this guy?

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZrNSa3b8g&feature=related[/url]

[QUOTE=Punter 127;419620]So are we to assume you agree with this guy?[/QUOTE]Ex is great guy and resonable fisherman BUT is a misguided liberal similar to WT69, and recently Ramiro. Guese thats why he can't go back to texas. LOL. Forgive Ex his shortcoming. He's getting old. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Hi Toymann,

Did you take "El Jeffe" fishing with you last month?

Exon

Here are your Wall Street Occupiers:

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/eyewitness-history_595200.html[/url]

Something to think about.

As that author notes, the group has no real demands or goals. They haven't even authorized anyone or any group to speak on their behalves and, to the extent someone tries to articulate what they're protesting, they get shot down by others who say that it's not what the protests are about. These folks are reminiscent of the protest chants from the misguided youths and miscreants protesting against the G7 a few years back:

"What Do We Want?" "We're Not Going To Tell!"

"When Do We Want It?" "Now!"

Unlike the unwashed OWS protesters now calling into question whether things in the US are a bit off track, the nicely focused economic gurus at whose altars you and your ilk worshiped (and incredibly still do) were quite certain of their nostrums. They knew what they wanted. They articulated everything elegantly with self confidence that was mesmerizing.

They convinced political decision makers around the globe that unbridled financial markets would forever rise, that global wealth floating on oceans of debt was a good thing, that esoteric risk management practices had made markets safe and all would be well if they were left to master the universe as the gods they are. We know how that worked out. And if you can't quite grasp it, that's what all the fuss is about.

I see you, Jackson, Wally, Alamo, et al attack Esten as if you were all schooled macro-economists, rather than admittedly intelligent individuals (with a few well known exceptions), whose incessant navel gazing results in simplistic, demonstrably erroneous, fact-challenged, self-satisfied, self-inflated views of things.

Funny, but for a group of guys ostensibly brought together by mongering, you spend more time on intellectual onanistic activity on this site, than all the teenage boys at a small prep school in US sex prison beating their puds under their sheets.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 419667]Here are your Wall Street Occupiers:

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/eyewitness-history_595200.html[/url]

Something to think about.

As that author notes, the group has no real demands or goals. They haven't even authorized anyone or any group to speak on their behalves and, to the extent someone tries to articulate what they're protesting, they get shot down by others who say that it's not what the protests are about. These folks are reminiscent of the protest chants from the misguided youths and miscreants protesting against the G7 a few years back:

"What Do We Want?" "We're Not Going To Tell!"

"When Do We Want It?" "Now!"[/QUOTE]"In the US, it is about a system that privatized massive gains and then socialized huge losses; allowed bailed-out banks to resume past behavior with seemingly little regulatory and legal consequences; and is paralyzed when it comes to alleviating the suffering of victims, including millions of unemployed (too many of whom are becoming long-term unemployed, slipping into poverty, and losing access to safety nets). The result is a visible and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in today's America."

Personally I refuse to identify with either group anymore. I don't think it was Republicans that privatized gain and socialized losses and I don't think it's Democrates that are trying to restore power to the poor. I think the whole blue v red thing is a smokescreen so we (the people) continue to blame each other for our ills while the richest 1, who could care less about party affiliations because they own them both, keep squeezing the margins until they quite literally own it all. I think soon small enterprise, like what Jax and a few others here do will eventually be nearly impossible in the US.

I think that the job market will be intentionally kept very tight for the next 5-10 years until worker attitudes shift back to a mentality more like what existed in the 30's where people would do anything for work regardless of the cost. Here's a great story from 1931 [url]http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0.9171,752972,00.html[/url] note paragraphs 1 and 4. They had to pay $1. 50 of their daily wage of $4. 00 to sleep in a bunkhouse and "Facing hunger, seeing hundreds of unemployed waiting around for their jobs, the striking workers modified their demands." As men died building the tunnel they would give the job to somebody standing there waiting. Why? Because the $2. 50 a day was the only thing keeping their families from starving.

Again I don't think this is a red v blue thing and I'm sure I'll get burned severly by the flamers but I agree with the people identifying themselves as 99%ers, something is seriously wrong with the state of our democracy.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz;419669]"In the US, it is about a system that privatized massive gains and then socialized huge losses; allowed bailed-out banks to resume past behavior with seemingly little regulatory and legal consequences; and is paralyzed when it comes to alleviating the suffering of victims, including millions of unemployed (too many of whom are becoming long-term unemployed, slipping into poverty, and losing access to safety nets). The result is a visible and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in today's America."[/QUOTE]Hey Daddy:

You are entitled to your perspective that it's not a Red v. Blue thing. I disagree, but not to as great a degree as you might imagine.

A couple comments, though. First, your link doesn't work. I presume it was to something about worker conditions in the 30s. No matter. I've read enough Steinbeck to know what you're referencing. Suffice it to say that we would benefit if the pendulum swung back in that direction a bit. I don't suggest for a second that we go all the way back there. It was not a good time. But, the pendulum has swung fully the other way for quite a while.

As for starting a business by young entrepreneurs in today's regulatory climate, I can tell you that it's already illegal. I don't mean to suggest that people don't start businesses. But, I do mean to suggest that you have to break dozens of laws to get it done, including reporting requirements, insurance requirements, payroll laws, etc, etc, that are far too onerous for a start-up to understand, much less comply with. I've seen this first hand. By the time your business gets larger, you can comply with most of the regs, but then there are more and more of them that you can't navigate, have no hope of complying with, or simply don't even know about until the government shows up asking questions.

I'm not even talking about normal tax stuff. Some of the whacky environmental, federal and state reporting requirements are insane, as are all of the regulatory agencies set up to protect worker rights. I have horror stories. I'll give you just one of many. We have a former employee who sued claiming she was discriminated because of her sexual orientation. So, she filed a claim with the state governmental agency. Those geniuses then fire off a 50 question form, which you must respond to. Fully half of the questions were this variety."Identify each of your supervisors and their sexual orientation." "For each supervisor, identify each employee who works for the supervisor, name, address, telephone number, etc, and state each employee's sexual orientation." Mind you, these are questions coming from a government agency. As to each of these questions, my response was that I would be happy to poll our employees and supervisors about their sexual orientation if the government agency would indemnify us against the ensuing lawsuits. I haven't heard back yet. There are many, many, many more examples just like this. So, you're spot on when you say that start-ups have no chance, at least if anyone expects that they will comply with the laws or the amazingly stupid bureaucrats the government employs.

Finally, I absolutely agree that banks are a problem. I personally believe that the most recent crisis was started by government and their mandates via HUD that people who don't deserve a loan must get a loan. The left leaning among us think it was excessive risk taking by banks, but even they would concede that the government was at least partially at fault. Regardless of who you blame, though, the real question is, what have we done to fix this?

This is where the Red v. Blue comes in, because the short answer is, [u]absolutely nothing. [/u] Indeed, Dodd-Frank permanently institutionalizes too-big-to-fail. It is impossible for the regional and community banks to compete with the too-big-to-fail banks. The new fees levied unfairly on the latter to fix the sins of the former have rendered it impossible to compete. The regional and local banks don't have the same access to the fed funds window that the TBTF banks do, nor can they compete across international lines with "hot money" made available by the Fed. In short, we have institutionalized a few chosen TBTF banks who we'll never be able to let fail now, so we'll always have to bail them out.

The better solution would, and still would, be to break them up. Or, if you're not going to do that, then impose an increasingly high set of FDIC tariffs on them as their assets under management get larger and their business model gets riskier based on business segments. The current regulations pay lip service to this latter idea, but it's only lip service.

I make no claim that Republicans are shining knights with only the people's best interests at heart. I claim only that the ones now trying to sidle up to the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, the Democrats and their union buddies, are the ones who brought you this mess in the first place, are the ones who had a chance to fix it, but are also the ones who took most campaign dollars from the banks last election, so they're not even trying to fix it. Look at how the Dems reformed Fannie and Freddie, which are huge Dem contributors. They've done nothing with these multi-billion losers despite repeated Republican efforts to fix the problem.

So, no, it's not all Red v. Blue. But, to the extent Dems claim to be the "people's" party, they are utterly hypocritical. Republicans may be more [i]overtly[/i] Business friendly but at least they're not hypocrites. And, to the extent Dems complain about fat cat bankers, I cringe. Democrats have done more to perpetuate them than anyone in the past 60 years.

I think we as a country need more of our last posts and less of this "For the Liberal Knuckleheads." I'm a progressive, and I've served my country, and I work really, really, hard. I think the answer to our ills lies between our positions and not in further polarizing us. I'm a big fan of Stew Beef and went to the rally last October. It's time for us to bind together and take the best ideas and move forward. Some of those ideas will be conservative and some progressive. It's this us v them mentality that continues to hurt our country.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz;419676]I think we as a country need more of our last posts and less of this "For the Liberal Knuckleheads."[/QUOTE]Lest you take my poor attempt at humor out of context, that post and its subject line were a direct response to Exon's post about 5 earlier titled "For you Republican Motherfuckers." That may not excuse the title completely. But, in my defense, I would submit that those who give must be willing to receive. And, for Exon, the word "Motherfucker" is something of a term of endearment. I don't think he's so thin-skinned that he'll wilt at the word "Knucklehead," although the word "Liberal" may render me persona non grata.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that we all need to start softening our views to meet in the middle, either. As a friend of mine used to say,"I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."

But, we likely could find some common ground on banks. I'm not against them. I just think the current policies and regulations, and those of the past 20 years, cause them to be a pernicious problem. We need banks. We need lots of banks. But we don't need 5 humongous, monolithic banks. US banks have convinced the current administration that they can't compete against foreign banks unless they can grow to steroids-addled proportions, and foreign banks have convinced their home countries of the same. The country that wins will be the first to call bullsh*t.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;419680]Lest you take my poor attempt at humor out of context, that post and its subject line were a direct response to Exon's post about 5 earlier titled "For you Republican Motherfuckers." That may not excuse the title completely. But, in my defense, I would submit that those who give must be willing to receive. And, for Exon, the word "Motherfucker" is something of a term of endearment.[/QUOTE]I am aquainted with the "gentleman" in question, understood.

I saw a flow chart the other day showing the consolodation of the banks down to the big 4, I was shocked. I knew there had been some trimming down but my mind has been on my studies the last few years and I hadn't noticed the extent.

It is great to see this Occupy Wall Street movement. What strikes me though, is why did it take so long for people to start raising their voice about this? It's probably because until recently there was simply little media coverage on this topic. And it's about time this became a front-and-center issue.

What are they protesting about? From the 'We Are The 99%' slogan it should be obvious - it's about the huge economic inequality between the top 1% and everyone else. More broadly, the top few %.

It's not about business itself. They don't care about the mom-and-pop and many other small businesses in the country. They are more concerned about large corporations, like Walmart, that help consolidate wealth in a few hands, sometimes by putting small business competitors out of business or acquiring them. And they are especially concerned how the financial industry concentrates wealth in a variety of ways, lobbying politicians and pressuring Corporate America.

I've posted on this topic many times before. A recent article in WSJ lays it out:

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of America's Gains
[url]http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/16/the-top-5-grabbed-most-of-the-americas-gains/[/url]

[QUOTE]A new chart from the Economic Policy Institute, using data from NYU Economist Ed Wolff, shows that more than 80% of the nation’s wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The top 1% gained 40% of the nation’s total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%.[/QUOTE]
81.5% of wealth gains went to the top 5%! So much for growing the pie! Truly unbelievable. If you could go back in time and ask the Founding Fathers, if the society they envisioned was one where the top 5% receive 81.5% of the wealth, what do you think their reaction would be? They would likely find the notion absurd.

I agree it's not entirely a red vs blue issue. Economic inequality has been increasing for decades under both parties. So what is the cause?

[u]The common denominator is free-market capitalism[/u]. Manipulated by the rich elite and their lobbyists. And supported by millions of people who don't understand the problem, or refuse to believe that capitalism itself could be part of the problem.

[QUOTE=Esten;419690]The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of America's Gains.[/QUOTE]Here's how I read that headline:

"The Wealthiest 5% [strike]Grabbed[/strike] Created Most of America's Gains

[QUOTE=Jackson; 419692]Here's how I read that headline:

"The Wealthiest 5% [strike]Grabbed[/strike] Created Most of America's Gains[/QUOTE]Sorry Jefe not prior to 2001, until then the engine that drove the majority of wealth creation was middle class home appreciation. Since 2001 there has been a fundimental shift in accumulation of wealth in La Tierra de las Gordas. Not my opinion boss.

[QUOTE=Esten;419690]It is great to see this Occupy Wall Street movement. What strikes me though, is why did it take so long for people to start raising their voice about this?[/QUOTE]Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was because they have the collective organizational abilities of a bag of rocks?

[QUOTE=Esten;419690]They don't care about the mom-and-pop and many other small businesses in the country.[/QUOTE]Neither does Obama.

[QUOTE=Esten;419690]81.5% of wealth gains went to the top 5%![/QUOTE]That's a great Class Warfare slogan, but it has nothing to do with why some people are poor.

Ask yourself this: Bill Gates became a multi-billionaire in the past 30 years. Are you any poorer because he made himself wealthy?

[QUOTE=Esten;419690]If you could go back in time and ask the Founding Fathers, if the society they envisioned was one where the top 5% receive 81.5% of the wealth, what do you think their reaction would be.[/QUOTE]They probably wouldn't think anything about it at all, given that this was the approximate distribution of wealth at the time. Remember all those "dead white men" who at the time risked everything they owned organizing the agricultural endeavors that created the wealth at the time.

[QUOTE=Esten;419690]Economic inequality has been increasing for decades under both parties.[/QUOTE]You are correct in that those who worked hard and created wealth for themselves are much better off than the lazy parasites who sat on their collective asses and waited for their government checks.

So was watching the Fox political show, The Five. Poor Juan Williams played the token fool. I guess I am quite slow, but it finally occurred to me that Fox is pretty much a tabloid station. At times, The Five does remind me of this forum. Now, let's see who plays who? Ok, ok, just joking. I love all you guys.

Esten is just beating the Class Warfare drum again. I doubt he has really listened to what the folks are saying in the War on Wall Street bunch. Basically it's; 'Give me a free home, education, food and any other material support I want, YOU pay for it while I sit on my lazy ass. '

This redistribution idea worked really well in Russia, Cuba, and North Korea. Why don't these guys move to the worker's paradise they so love and admire? Probably because they would be lined up against a wall and shot.

To preface my following remarks even liberals have to admit Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the exception to the rule and there will always be those who make massive change through innovation and they will reap the rewards.

That said, I am going to agree CEO / Executive pay is way out of sync with reality; nobody is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in pay no matter who they are! What I find hilarious is the very thing liberals are complaining about, overpaid executives, is something they CAUSED! Do your homework, back in the 70's those folks who never held a job but went from undergrad to grad to professorships as 'business experts' decided the American business model was too conservative and needed to be more aggressive. To this end they proposed linking executive pay to performance. Back then CEOs / executives enjoyed a pay rate in the tens of multiples of their regular employees. As with all things the law of unintended consequences came into play with one wild scheme after another to 'boost company performance' had less and less to do with the true value of the company but were only designed to boost executive pay under the 'new rules'. Each successive round of schemes pushed the envelope a little further until now we have folks making 100s of millions of dollars in pay.

We can get into where the money should have gone later; reinvested in the company to produce more jobs and to the investors.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 419692]Here's how I read that headline:

"The Wealthiest 5% [strike]Grabbed[/strike] Created Most of America's Gains[/QUOTE]Most people have probably heard of John Paulson. He's a billionaire hedge fund manager, most famous for generating returns of up to 600% by betting against mortgages in 2008 as the market crashed.

In 2010, Mr. Paulson personally made more than [u]$5 Billion in profits[/u]. To put that in context, that's equivalent to 100, 000 workers making $50K. Or 5000 CEOs getting a $1 Million bonus.

Trader Racks Up a Second Epic Gain
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704268104576108390332589096.html[/url]

How did he do it? By doing what all hedge funds do - trading in stocks, ETFs, and other financial instruments. In some cases using high-speed computers with sophisticated algorithms to enter and exit trades in mere seconds. Playing both the short and long side of trades.

Did Paulson [i]create[/i] $5 Billion in wealth?

Or did Paulson [i]extract[/i] $5 Billion in wealth?

[QUOTE=Esten; 419703]Most people have probably heard of John Paulson. He's a billionaire hedge fund manager, most famous for generating returns of up to 600% by betting against mortgages in 2008 as the market crashed.

In 2010, Mr. Paulson personally made more than [u]$5 Billion in profits[/u]. To put that in context, that's equivalent to 100, 000 workers making $50K. Or 5000 CEOs getting a $1 Million bonus.

Did Paulson [i]create[/i] $5 Billion in wealth?

Or did Paulson [i]extract[/i] $5 Billion in wealth?[/QUOTE]Esten,

I would not be surprised if John Paulson paid less taxes than Buffet's personal secretary.

Long Live the REPUBLICAN PARTY! - hehehe

[QUOTE=Moveon; 419707]Esten,

I would not be surprised if John Paulson paid less taxes than Buffet's personal secretary.

Long Live the REPUBLICAN PARTY!. Hehehe[/QUOTE]Can't we get back to talking about getting laid boys?

TL

P.S - National Socialist Untill The Day I Die !

Some of you say you want to do away with Unions.

This one is sort of a Dictatorial Union.

Let's Break this one!

I did not write this, just passing it on.

I could not find any thing negative on Urban Legends. Com.

Subject: Let us all speak up!

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC."You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only.

3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971. Before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land. All because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011.

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.

Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term (s) , then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the USA) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

WT I agree with you completely on this one. It is a great idea, but I fear it has an ice cube's chance in hell of making it through.

I've posted several times regarding resending elected official's healthcare and retirement systems. They send the rest of us down the path of Medicare and Social Security but exempt themselves so they keep their 'private' plan.

By the way, Congress has to VOTE AGAINST IT'S PAY RAISES so as not to receive one. Many years ago they faded so much heat every time they passed pay raise for themselves they hit upon a strategy of making the raises automatic and requiring a majority vote to reject them.

Who are you, and what are your ransom demands for the safe return of WorldTravel69?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 419709]Some of you say you want to do away with Unions.

This one is sort of a Dictatorial Union.

Let's Break this one!

I did not write this, just passing it on.

I could not find any thing negative on Urban Legends. Com.

Subject: Let us all speak up!

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC."You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only.

3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971. Before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land. All because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011.

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.

Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term (s) , then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the USA) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre; 419708]Can't we get back to talking about getting laid boys?

TL.

P. S. National Socialist Untill The Day I Die![/QUOTE]Tambien. TL

We are Mostly Lawyers. As you know, each of us have different views and can not agree on what the amount should be, much less anything else.

[QUOTE=Jackson;419714]Who are you, and what are your ransom demands for the safe return of WorldTravel69?[/QUOTE]

I just could not past this up.

Happy Reading. Ha Ha

OK, I'm back in Key west and have nothing better to do than post on this board. Watching that middle of the road, completely balanced Fox news channel doesn't help matters.

Are we nuts? Economies worldwide are going to pot because of excessive government spending and excessive government debt. Haven't we learned anything? Spending more and piling on more debt.

My guess is that if Obama was a firefighter (his first real job) he would recommend throwing gasoline on burning buildings.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;419808]My guess is that if Obama was a firefighter (his first real job) he would recommend throwing gasoline on burning buildings.[/QUOTE]That's exactly what he would do if he thought it would get him votes from the people who didn't like the owners of the burning buildings.

In fact, Obama would burn down 49% of the city if he thought it would get the other 51% to re-elect him.

Hell, Obama would burn down the entire city just so he could tell the suburbanites it happened because 5% of the city's firefighters were laid off, and then Joe Biden would tell them that their homes would be next if Congress didn't pass Stimulus II [B]today[/B]!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 419809]That's exactly what he would do if he thought it would get him votes from the people who didn't like the owners of the burning buildings.

In fact, Obama would burn down 49% of the city if he thought it would get the other 51% to re-elect him.

Hell, Obama would burn down the entire city just so he could tell the suburbanites it happened because 5% of the city's firefighters were laid off, and then Joe Biden would tell them that their homes would be next if Congress didn't pass Stimulus II [B]today[/B]![/QUOTE]If the Taxes don't get you Inflation will!

TL

Yes, my fellow colleagues and Patriots of the far right. You really aren't surprised, are you?

Our fascist news channel in the US & the Republican's Party's mouthpiece did it again. Got caught with telling another lie on national television.

Apparently, FOX NEWS was reporting that President Obama had to cancel a trip to Japan, which was planned in advance, where he was going to apologize to the Japanese people for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

The anchors of the television station were all twisting their heads in disgust. Well, it turns out it was all bull and here is Mr. Goofy himself wagging his tail:

[url]http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/fox_friends_we_should_have_clarified_that_our_repo.php?ref=fpblg[/url]

[QUOTE=Moveon; 419821]Yes, my fellow colleagues and Patriots of the far right. You really aren't surprised, are you?

Our fascist news channel in the US & the Republican's Party's mouthpiece did it again. Got caught with telling another lie on national television.

Apparently, FOX NEWS was reporting that President Obama had to cancel a trip to Japan, which was planned in advance, where he was going to apologize to the Japanese people for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

The anchors of the television station were all twisting their heads in disgust. Well, it turns out it was all bull and here is Mr. Goofy himself wagging his tail:

[url]http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/fox_friends_we_should_have_clarified_that_our_repo.php?ref=fpblg[/url][/QUOTE]Hey Moveon,

"another broadcasting lie."

Really? Please list the other "broadcasting lie[s]".

I think you're suffering from "Fox News Derangement Syndrome".

I mean, it's just ONE cable news channel in an ocean of media news outlets.

You don't see people in the center or the right spending time obsessing about MSNBC, do you?

So what's the threat? Why are you so afraid of Fox News?

Thanks,

Jackson.

PS: I'm sure that Esten will, as usual, find an obscure reference of a conservative obsessing about MSNBC, while simultaneously ignoring the preponderance of the evidence that the right does not care one with about MSNBC. That's how liberals argue, by finding and quoting the obscure 1% and asserting that it's a representative comment.

Flame on!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 419822]Hey Moveon,

Why are you so afraid of Fox News?[/QUOTE]Who said I was afraid of FOX NEWS?

I watch it on occasion just for fun & amusement. I do admit, it becomes theatrical at some points of the programming.

Yes, when a news station bashes President Obama literally every minute of the day while praising and glorifying the likes of 2 yr term Alaskan former Governor Sarah Palin, Ron Paul and other similar wing nuts, well we all know the slogan for Fox News really should not read: "Fair and Balanced." "We Report. You Decide."

It's more like "Faked and Biased." "We Report. We Decide."

Looks like Cain is finished. Not because of the so called sexual harrassment. Because he doesn't even know that China has nuclear weapons, wants to put warships off the coast of Iran and who knows what else. As far as foreign policy goes, Sarah Palin would be equivalent to Henry Kissinger when compared with Cain.

The next pretender will be the Newt. Has more baggage than a Samsonite outlet store.

I hate to say it but Obama must be licking his chops over this Republican lineup.

I say we bring back George Bush Sr. He has one good term left in him. If not, perhaps Nancy Reagan. By osmosis she probably absorbed enough from Ronnie to get us out of the mess we are in.

Since you asked.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Jackson;419822]Really? Please list the other "broadcasting lie[s]".[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 419918]Since you asked.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html[/url][/QUOTE] (1) How can a high-school sophomore, who Jennings saw around campus an additional two years after their meeting (in other words, the boy's junior and senior years in high school) have been over the age of consent, as the Huffington Post stipulates.

Never mind that Jennings is long-time gay activist whose personal role model once praised NAMBLA.

I don't know why FOX and some people consider that apologizing would be a sign of weakness. The US government apologized to the Japanese Americans for the segregated camps during WWII. Germany apologized to Jewish people. Nobody think that these countries were weak or humiliated simply because they apologized.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 419821]Yes, my fellow colleagues and Patriots of the far right. You really aren't surprised, are you?

Our fascist news channel in the US & the Republican's Party's mouthpiece did it again. Got caught with telling another lie on national television.

Apparently, FOX NEWS was reporting that President Obama had to cancel a trip to Japan, which was planned in advance, where he was going to apologize to the Japanese people for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

The anchors of the television station were all twisting their heads in disgust. Well, it turns out it was all bull and here is Mr. Goofy himself wagging his tail:

[url]http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/fox_friends_we_should_have_clarified_that_our_repo.php?ref=fpblg[/url][/QUOTE]

Herman Cain is toast. I was really looking forward to a black referendum between Cain & Obama, it is time for the minorities to clear the air about getting the shaft. But he was never going to be able to beat Romney anyway. It is amazing that Gingrich can somehow stay relevant, Palin & him are both con artists making a damn good living just playing the political circuit.

Here is Obama's latest brainstorm on how to reduce unemployment, make America more competitive and get the economy moving again.

A 15 cent tax on the sale of Christmas Trees. The tax is to be used to improve the image of Christmas trees.

Number one, when did the image of Christmas trees need to be improved and number two, what business is it of the government to try to improve the image of Christmas trees.

I would gladly swap the braindead, milktoast, politically correct Obama we have now for an Obama who was world class sexual predator, pedophile, and serial killer but understood something about how economies function.

Now it is the nasty OLD FOLKS that must be made to suffer.

Newest study finds that house holds age 65 and older have more wealth than house holds age 35 and younger.

Could it be the 65 and up folks worked all their life and saved for retirement and the 35 and under have another 30+ years to go to amass those funds? Or is it the 35 and under crowd is lazier, more shiftless, enter the work place later and are spending too much time hanging out at Occupy. Name the city?

What a load of crap!

What with the Cain debacle and Coach Joe Paterno and Penn State football, it has been a humiliating and dismal few days. What we have seen is INTEGRITY taken to a new low in a society that is obssess with materialism and fame. It is a road that we have taken and it is a road that is being duplicated as other societies raise their standards of living. The frenzy of over-indulgence and glamor at the expense of family values, decency and integrity. It is not just a few individuals, it is where we are as a culture and society in 2011.

And so surrounded by flood waters in Bangkok, I venture out of my soi (lane) in a punt pulled by a bare-footed smiling young country boy who insisted that I only pay him only 10 baht rather than the 20 baht I was going to give him. And so, my day was redeem by a boy untainted by Goldman Sachs, BMWs, I phones, even McDonalds. He was just surviving the forces of nature and bad greedy politicians and multi-nationals.