'The Five' on FNC were trashing Michelle last night and Sen. Durbin. It was disgusting journalism. They're all nutty, although two of the guys on there did make decent points for both sides but ultimately they're right wingers. That one woman with the Jar Jar Binks face covered in makeup is certified mental.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
None of them are journalists. It's basically a bunch of people opining on events and injecting right-wing talking points whenever they can. Beckel just does it for a laugh as you can see he doesn't bother speaking his mind on some of the nuttier stuff that comes up.
Tantaros has the most amazing jugs on TV though. I would give almost anything to see them.
Yeah, I couldn't think of the appropriate word so I used journalism, probably should have used reporting or opining or talking shit. Begs the question is where does FNC find these clowns and how difficult is it to find a gig as an opinionated talk show nut?
That Eric bloke is a massive cnut. He shakes about his gold rolex and moans about the rich having it so tough...a really odious prick of a man.
The Clinton speech was very very well done..
but this pissed the feck outta me!
The need to put god back in the platform and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel...
What was the need?!
And even if there was, what a horrible horrible way to come to a decision.
There is NO WAY, NO WAY that sounded like 2/3rds of the people, more like half!
To do a vote like that, based purely on a screaming match, that itself is ridiculous.
but this pissed the feck outta me!
The need to put god back in the platform and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel...
What was the need?!
And even if there was, what a horrible horrible way to come to a decision.
There is NO WAY, NO WAY that sounded like 2/3rds of the people, more like half!
To do a vote like that, based purely on a screaming match, that itself is ridiculous.
It's common at conventions to do like that. But the sight of each political party jumping through hoops for Israel is depressing.
And that topic has become the FNC/right wing wet dream story. Mormonism believer Romney even proclaimed the left to be an extremist party without god.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen
Even if you accept the (ridiculous) way of voting, how can you have an aye/nay vote on two totally separate issues?
And if anything, the last time he tries it it sounds like a nay.
You heard me, two Houlliers. The last time I was pushed that far was when the Chief claimed you couldn't say Zidane was better than Titus Bramble.
Even if you accept the (ridiculous) way of voting, how can you have an aye/nay vote on two totally separate issues?
And if anything, the last time he tries it it sounds like a nay.
You heard me, two Houlliers. The last time I was pushed that far was when the Chief claimed you couldn't say Zidane was better than Titus Bramble.
What does "putting God back on the platform" actually mean? Is he running?
That's definitely not 2/3s. Without a shadow of a doubt. Dodgy politics.
That's definitely not 2/3s. Without a shadow of a doubt. Dodgy politics.
One of those female nutters on FNC 'The Five' claimed this was akin to Venezuela silencing voters of the opposition.
Well that may be hyperbole but it was clearly riding roughshod over any kind of, er, democratic process in order to get a pre-ordained result.
Was there any need for the vote then?
Reagan was a great speech giver and debater too. Probably as good as Clinton.
Err.. not sure that he deregulation made the economy deteriorate at all. He did massively increase the deficit.
I think the steady decline has more to do with a globalization and WTO (collapse of the soviet union), the technology and human capital 'boom' which meant the US economy becoming more services focused.
As a fiscal conservative, Clinton 2nd term was by far one of the most effective budget corrections in recent US history.
As a side note since we a have some politically minded folks in this thread. Here are some good politics related movies to check out.
The Candidate with Robert Redford
The Best Man (takes place at a political convention) with Henry Fonda
All The Kings Men (the 1949 version) with Broderick Crawford
The Candidate with Robert Redford
The Best Man (takes place at a political convention) with Henry Fonda
All The Kings Men (the 1949 version) with Broderick Crawford
Ronald Wilson Reagan = 666 = The Devil.
His greatest legacy is being the source for ronnie's 2nd name.
His greatest legacy is being the source for ronnie's 2nd name.
If only Bullet Tooth Tony had've continued to be Bill's bitch rather than bending over for Dubya. Not having Clinton in charge fecked us up as well!
I liked this little article from The Guardian on who to blame for the recession/collapse. Not meant to be a comprehensive list, but an interesting set of characters. I think they left some of the usual suspects (Bush) out on purpose.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/03/who-caused-financial-crisis-great-recession
But yes Reagan does make the list as does Clinton.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/03/who-caused-financial-crisis-great-recession
But yes Reagan does make the list as does Clinton.
Reagan would not have been able to take the stage at the RNC...he's a democrat by today's standards.
Reagan was an B-movie actor who was great at delivering a hammy script.
Why are you a fiscal conservative out of interest (no pun intended)?
Or really achieved.
Hard to believe he wasn't being deliberately ironic there.
Because, social conservatives are nutters and most probably stuck in the past.
Fiscal, because I believe in the free-market, small-state and balanced budgets. None of which is the current new (or old) labour position, or the position of the US democrat party, (or even the GOP).
But they (conservatives, TPs, right wingers) love him.
Well, yes, I know what a fiscal conservative is, I wondered why you believe in it?
Who else are they going to hold up, Bush I is evil and Bush II is a blithering idiot. They never seem to mention Gerald Ford, they sure aren't going for Nixon! A few elections ago it was "The Party of Lincoln" as if the modern Republican party was the same as in the days of the Civil War.
Dwight D. Eisenhower would be a great choice, but he'd be a Democrat today I'd think.
Woooooo yeeahhhh!!
Israel babyyyy
Israel babyyyy
I'm an economist (well graduated as one). I do have a tendency to believe in the free market as probably the better ways to avoid market distortions. There can be market failure, which is where the government should step in. I tend towards new neoclassical theory, not so much keynesian. I'm more interested in behavioural economics ('nudge') and other more applied aspects.
Point is that economics totally failed to predict this financial crisis. It also has no solutions. The democrats, and the left say that "post-Keynesianism" i.e. stimulus injection to fill the output gap will solve the economic problem, it could do, but it was also the CAUSE of the problem in the first place. I'm of the opinion that we are going through a readjustment period of less freely available credit, less state-funded projects and loans, and thus slow, slow growth. This is why the Coalition, and German position is correct. Totally correct, despite higher unemployment.
Alternatively, free-market economics inevitably leads to boom and bust with the poorer people picking up the bill.
Does free market economics also lead to an inevitable and indefinitely expanding wealth gap? Because that's not tolerable.
All market driven economies lead to cycles, because there are too many lags in the system and a lack of correct information for decision making. However, the market has always, for the most part done a superb job in allocating goods and services effectively most of the time. The sooner people realise that this is the case, the better.
On the issue of equality: I don't care. I don't care about wealth gaps. This is inevitable, more intelligent, talented, or skilled people, in the right places at the right time will always earn more and thus acquire more wealth and power. I have no problem with that. The only aspect of poverty I'm concerned about is if a person wants to improve their skills, they should have that opportunity (education and training), and should have enough to live. The rest is up to the individual.
high unemplymnent is not acceptable.
There needs to be a readjustment. Having so many unemplyed is a burden to the entire economy. There are so many projects that need to be undertaken. Retrianing and direct employment will address this in the short term.
There needs to be a readjustment. Having so many unemplyed is a burden to the entire economy. There are so many projects that need to be undertaken. Retrianing and direct employment will address this in the short term.
What? No it wasn't.
Source?
some supply or trickle down economist no doubt.
btw no such thing really exists. Its the gobly gook nonsense that good propaganda has established but is totally false.
Bollocks - they are inherently unfair and exploitative and have cycles due to greed and their inherent unsustainability.
convenient coincidence that in these cycles those on the top always ride the wave, but those at the bottom are always underwater.
but we are all on a level playing field so its all fair..
but we are all on a level playing field so its all fair..
What time will Barack Obama's speech be at, roughly?
- Status