Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Fox has hired Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, and others who have been presidential or VP candidates.... which Democrats candidates have they hired.???? They are the voice of the GOP...ie. a propaganda network.... not a real news network.

"Fair and balanced" would mean both parties would be represented ... or better yet.. neither.

[Mean Green 93-98]

---Fox has hired Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, and others who have been presidential or VP candidates.... which Democrats candidates have they hired.???? They are the voice of the GOP...ie. a propaganda network.... not a real news network.

"Fair and balanced" would mean both parties would be represented ... or better yet.. neither.

So what has ABC done to offset George Stephanopoulos?

[Coffee and TV]

So what has ABC done to offset George Stephanopoulos?

John Stossel.

Its silly regardless, just do yourself a favor and tune in to stuff like the PBS Newshour, or POTUS on SiriusXM. Anything else is pretty much just tribalism horseshit.

[UNT90]

John Stossel.

Its silly regardless, just do yourself a favor and tune in to stuff like the PBS Newshour, or POTUS on SiriusXM. Anything else is pretty much just tribalism horseshit.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/john-stossel-leaving-abc-for-fox_b27279

Guess you missed this. Stossel is one of the true investigative reports left In this world (read: investigates to find the truth, not to support a preconceived opinion based on the reporter's political beliefs). He was equally hard on both sides when they were on the wrong side of the truth.

His reasons for leaving ABC are also very interesting.

[Coffee and TV]

Stossel is one of the true investigative reports left In this world (read: investigates to find the truth, not to support a preconceived opinion based on the reporter's political beliefs).

This is exactly the opposite of how I'd describe Stossel.

[UNT90]

This is exactly the opposite of how I'd describe Stossel.

Right. Because he says bad things about liberals sometimes and ALWAYS brings facts with his reports.

Notice how a lot of the "old journalism" disciples are jumping to FOX?

Edited February 1, 2012 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

I don't have much use for this thread in general, but I two would enjoy enlightenment.

Can I take a stab at it?

Supreme court judge Hugo Black, a Ku Klux Klansman who hated the Catholic Church, misinterpreted Jefferson In his writing for the majority in Everson vs Board of Education, and the ill informed have been running with his fallacy ever since.

Is that the short and sweet of it?

Rick

Edited February 1, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

Can I take a stab at it?

Supreme court judge Hugo Black, a Ku Klux Klansman who hated the Catholic Church, misinterpreted Jefferson In his writing for the majority in Everson vs Board of Education, and the ill informed have been running with his fallacy ever since.

Is that the short and sweet of it?

Rick

No.

Treaty of Tripoli 1797.

[FirefightnRick]

No.

Treaty of Tripoli 1797.

Reference to one line in a treaty that only lasted 4 years seems even more of a stretch than Black's assumption, no?

Rick

Edited February 1, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[FirefightnRick]

Romney wins Florida with 46%.

Newt second with 32%,

Santorum 13%

Paul (hind tit)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/31/romney-leading-among-seniors-hispanics-in-florida-exit-polls/

[FirefightnRick]

Congressional Budget Office reports another $1 trillion deficit

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72205.html

..."For the fourth year in a row, Washington faces a $1 trillion-plus deficit and just servicing the nation’s debt will soon cost as much as paying for Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor and the disabled...."

Rick

Edited February 1, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[HoustonEagle]

But I thought deficits don't matter? Have we been lied to all these years?

Edited February 1, 2012 by HoustonEagle

[meangreendork]

This story has been all over the liberal media, except is hasn't

Christian Science Monitor picked it up too.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1116/biblical-anti-obama-slogan-use-of-psalm-1098-funny-or-sinister

It's all in how the verse is used. As a whole, the verse isn't bad, but when it's down to the widow/fatherless part, and JUST that part, then we have a whole other issue.

[Coffee and TV]

This thread (and forum) could use a break from bickering and just laugh at the thought of this guy running our country.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Coffee and TV

[Coffee and TV]

Nevada might be the first time Romney cracks 50% in a primary state. Wonder why exactly Santorum & Gingrich are hanging on.

[Rudy]

---Fox has hired Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, and others who have been presidential or VP candidates.... which Democrats candidates have they hired.???? They are the voice of the GOP...ie. a propaganda network.... not a real news network.

"Fair and balanced" would mean both parties would be represented ... or better yet.. neither.

I wouldn't ezzactly call MSNBC balanced.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Rudy

[CMJ]

I wouldn't ezzactly call MSNBC balanced.

Neither would they.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Congressional Budget Office reports another $1 trillion deficit

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72205.html

..."For the fourth year in a row, Washington faces a $1 trillion-plus deficit and just servicing the nation’s debt will soon cost as much as paying for Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor and the disabled...."

Rick

..

--Congress will not pass anything... The President can not sign what has not been passed... I am blaming both parties.... compromise and get it back under control... during th 90's the debt climbed less than 2% per year (much less than the interest on the debt).. The cost (servicing your term) of debt is interest.. so you are saying the interest alone will soon equal those items... that is terrible. It got out of control after the tax cut and the wars we got involved in after 9-11 (which had zero to do with Iraq). It is now triple what it was when Clinton (and 41 other Presidents) left office.

---It is really tough to get out of debt once you are in deep debt.... which we are now.

..

Edited February 3, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

Nevada might be the first time Romney cracks 50% in a primary state. Wonder why exactly Santorum OR Gingrich are hanging on.

Fixed.

One should (and eventually will) go, which will make it a 2 man race.

As far as all other candidates throwing in the towel, I would hope just 4 states would not be all a candidate needs to capture any party's nomination. Long, long, long, long way to go on this thing. Romney makes a couple of more stupid comments (like he did about the poor), and it's wide open.

Liberal Mitt ain't closed it out yet. Super Tuesday will tell the tale.

[yyz28]

..

--Congress will not pass anything... The President can not sign what has not been passed... I am blaming both parties.... compromise and get it back under control... during th 90's the debt climbed less than 2% per year (much less than the interest on the debt).. The cost (servicing your term) of debt is interest.. so you are saying the interest alone will soon equal those items... that is terrible. It got out of control after the tax cut and the wars we got involved in after 9-11 (which had zero to do with Iraq). It is now triple what it was when Clinton (and 41 other Presidents) left office.

---It is really tough to get out of debt once you are in deep debt.... which we are now.

..

Do you seriously believe what you type? I wonder. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1000 days. The branch of congress that won't pass anything for the President to

sign or veto is the democratically controlled senate. The House passes stuff virtually daily in session, bills of all sort, and they all end up in never-never land with Reid running things on the Senate. Debt got out of control because of a TAX CUT?!?! The tax rate doesn't create debt. Spending in excess of our revenue is what causes debt.

...and the debt went up 4.6 Trillion under 8 years of Bush (where we had 9/11 and fought two wars), and has since gone 3.5 trillion in 3 years under Obama, even as we've spent far less on the wars overseas since he took office vs. Bush. Then look at deficits by year and you'll find a MAJOR spike in deficits after the 2006 election, particularly in 2008. Consider the fact that Congress has more to do with spending and you draw your own conclusions.

We can fix this problem tomorrow. You want compromise, call leaders of both parties, tell them to return to 2008 spending, eliminate baseline budgeting and cut 1% of spending for the next 5 years. Balanced budget in 5 years with that plan. ...and it's not like we weren't spending a metric sh!t-ton of money in 2008.

You're right in saying both parties got us here, but it happened because Bush was not a conservative President, and Congress under Republican control during the 2000's was not in the least bit fiscal conservative - they lost that banner when they chased Newt off of capital hill. ...they have been Democrat lite since, spending like drunken sailors.

Time to get serious. We need SOLID CONSERVATIVE RESTRAINED FISCAL POLICY and we need to STOP SPENDING money we don't have. This President certainly won't do it. This Congress is impotent as it's deadlocked, so they can't do it. We need a major overhaul to our fiscal system or its going to be too late.

[HoustonEagle]

Do you seriously believe what you type? I wonder. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1000 days. The branch of congress that won't pass anything for the President to

sign or veto is the democratically controlled senate. The House passes stuff virtually daily in session, bills of all sort, and they all end up in never-never land with Reid running things on the Senate. Debt got out of control because of a TAX CUT?!?! The tax rate doesn't create debt. Spending in excess of our revenue is what causes debt.

...and the debt went up 4.6 Trillion under 8 years of Bush (where we had 9/11 and fought two wars), and has since gone 3.5 trillion in 3 years under Obama, even as we've spent far less on the wars overseas since he took office vs. Bush. Then look at deficits by year and you'll find a MAJOR spike in deficits after the 2006 election, particularly in 2008. Consider the fact that Congress has more to do with spending and you draw your own conclusions.

We can fix this problem tomorrow. You want compromise, call leaders of both parties, tell them to return to 2008 spending, eliminate baseline budgeting and cut 1% of spending for the next 5 years. Balanced budget in 5 years with that plan. ...and it's not like we weren't spending a metric sh!t-ton of money in 2008.

You're right in saying both parties got us here, but it happened because Bush was not a conservative President, and Congress under Republican control during the 2000's was not in the least bit fiscal conservative - they lost that banner when they chased Newt off of capital hill. ...they have been Democrat lite since, spending like drunken sailors.

Time to get serious. We need SOLID CONSERVATIVE RESTRAINED FISCAL POLICY and we need to STOP SPENDING money we don't have. This President certainly won't do it. This Congress is impotent as it's deadlocked, so they can't do it. We need a major overhaul to our fiscal system or its going to be too late.

To be fair Obama has little to do with the structural deficits that are plaguing Washington right now. There was some massive one off spending that was done at the beginning of his term to put a floor under the nations economy. We were caught up in a negative feedback loop and his (Washingtons) actions did indeed put us back on our feet. That does not mean our revenues miraculously returned back to 2007 levels. So while structural spending has continued its normal ugly trajectory our revenues with 8.3% unemployment are much lower. Not to mention that Obama (and congress) up until this point has only lowered people's taxes further from what were already historically low tax rates. (modern era)

Over the last year Obama has publicly supported the largest decrease in structural spending in decades. He just has one caveat which I personally feel is a reasonable one. He wants some added revenue as well. I hate taxes as much or more than the next guy but I also understand our fiscal problems will not be fixed with spending cuts alone. Personally I think they should make the necessary cuts and increase taxes by .005 - 1% across the board on everyone above the poverty line.

For the sake of argument. In my lifetime Ronald Reagan ushered in the era of massive deficit spending and Bill Clinton reformed welfare and balanced the budget. (yes congress plays a major roll) So who is a true conservative? Are tax rates alone the only measure of fiscally conservative policy?

Edited February 5, 2012 by HoustonEagle

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Do you seriously believe what you type? I wonder. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1000 days. The branch of congress that won't pass anything for the President to

sign or veto is the democratically controlled senate. The House passes stuff virtually daily in session, bills of all sort, and they all end up in never-never land with Reid running things on the Senate. Debt got out of control because of a TAX CUT?!?! The tax rate doesn't create debt. Spending in excess of our revenue is what causes debt.

...and the debt went up 4.6 Trillion under 8 years of Bush (where we had 9/11 and fought two wars), and has since gone 3.5 trillion in 3 years under Obama, even as we've spent far less on the wars overseas since he took office vs. Bush. Then look at deficits by year and you'll find a MAJOR spike in deficits after the 2006 election, particularly in 2008. Consider the fact that Congress has more to do with spending and you draw your own conclusions.

We can fix this problem tomorrow. You want compromise, call leaders of both parties, tell them to return to 2008 spending, eliminate baseline budgeting and cut 1% of spending for the next 5 years. Balanced budget in 5 years with that plan. ...and it's not like we weren't spending a metric sh!t-ton of money in 2008.

You're right in saying both parties got us here, but it happened because Bush was not a conservative President, and Congress under Republican control during the 2000's was not in the least bit fiscal conservative - they lost that banner when they chased Newt off of capital hill. ...they have been Democrat lite since, spending like drunken sailors.

Time to get serious. We need SOLID CONSERVATIVE RESTRAINED FISCAL POLICY and we need to STOP SPENDING money we don't have. This President certainly won't do it. This Congress is impotent as it's deadlocked, so they can't do it. We need a major overhaul to our fiscal system or its going to be too late.

---Tell them to return to 2008 spending levels...????... the debt had just doubled in 8 years... !!!! Cutting 1% per year is about nothing... the interest is increasing it much more than that..... Increasing the debt that much is not conservative.. !!

We need SOLID CONSERVATIVE RESTRAINED FISCAL POLICY and we need to STOP SPENDING money we don't have. --the Bush administration sure didn't do that... the debt went from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion. I agree with your comment... but you need to look at what happened.

Conservative is not spending more than you are taking in.... applies to families as well. That wasn't happening then or now either..

..

Edited February 8, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

Santorum with the hat trick?

Rick

[CMJ]

Too early to say.

EDIT: Now half an hour later CNN calls it.

Edited February 8, 2012 by CMJ

[Coffee and TV]

Santorum with the hat trick?

Rick

Please nominate Santorum, it would be just wonderful.