THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

Frank, pay attention.
You made a point about MSNBC, which we both know I don't watch (specifically because wingers expect me to).
I made a counterpoint about Faux News.
Let me spell it out:
MSNBC fires people when they're stupid, insensitive, and wrong.
Fox News Channel gives them a contract extension.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

undercoverjoe wrote: I am against big unions being successful. GM if it had been allowed to file for bankruptcy, would have renegotiated its union contracts and would be even more successful.

Reagan talked a good game against big government, but really did not cut the size of government.

Would JFK, who drastically cut income tax rates, be elected today?

I don't know, but I guarantee you'd have Kennedy Derangement Syndrome, instead of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
You'd be all over him for not allowing the USSR to put nukes in Cuba, and masturbating yourself to sleep fantasizing about Nixon & Goldwater.

You'd also deny we ever went to the moon, and give us 1000 blog-links to show proof. And pissing and moaning about Kennedomunism.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

songsmith wrote:Frank, pay attention.
You made a point about MSNBC, which we both know I don't watch (specifically because wingers expect me to).
I made a counterpoint about Faux News.
Let me spell it out:
MSNBC fires people when they're stupid, insensitive, and wrong.
Fox News Channel gives them a contract extension.

Na, they fire people when they aren't progressives like them. Sure Bucanan is a schmuck. But I think his book was a cop out to fire him. They fired him because he wasn't a liberal. And didn't agree with the President of the networks views.

It isn't like anyone will miss him anyhow. MSNBC's ratings are so bad that nothing will get them up.

Here -> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/0 ... 12/120434/

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

Ummmm... Olbermann was/is a progressive. Call me when Fox News cans Bill-O.
Oh, I did see Fox News Business fired Napolitano... along with their ENTIRE primetime lineup. Why? Some Fox-fans thinks it's because he was very critical of Fox and the hardline GOP, and that may have been partly true, but look at FBN ratings on your link for the real reason. Apparently, one Fox News is enough.

MSNBC has more than EIGHT TIMES as many viewers as FBC (whole day ratings).

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote: I am against big unions being successful. GM if it had been allowed to file for bankruptcy, would have renegotiated its union contracts and would be even more successful.

Reagan talked a good game against big government, but really did not cut the size of government.

Would JFK, who drastically cut income tax rates, be elected today?
I don't know, but I guarantee you'd have Kennedy Derangement Syndrome, instead of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
You'd be all over him for not allowing the USSR to put nukes in Cuba, and masturbating yourself to sleep fantasizing about Nixon & Goldwater. You'd also deny we ever went to the moon, and give us 1000 blog-links to show proof. And pissing and moaning about Kennedomunism.

JFK lowered income tax rates more than Bush or Reagan.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

Would he even be allowed in the Democrat party today?

If he were around today, he might make a good VP for Ron Paul.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

songsmith wrote:
Reagan couldn't be elected today, he was a socialist.
Reagomunism.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

Could JFK be in today's Democrat party?

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

songsmith wrote:Ummmm... Olbermann was/is a progressive. Call me when Fox News cans Bill-O.
Oh, I did see Fox News Business fired Napolitano... along with their ENTIRE primetime lineup. Why? Some Fox-fans thinks it's because he was very critical of Fox and the hardline GOP, and that may have been partly true, but look at FBN ratings on your link for the real reason. Apparently, one Fox News is enough. MSNBC has more than EIGHT TIMES as many viewers as FBC (whole day ratings).

Yes, your favorite station gets more viewers than Fox Business, but not even half the viewers of Fox News itself.

I don't know anyone who watches Fox Business. I watch CNBC for all my stock market updates. Call me when MSNBC isn't so bias.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

A conservative Republican, a moderate Republican and a liberal Republican walk into bar. The bartender says...

Hi Mitt.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Tuesday Feb 21, 2012

Hawk wrote:A conservative Republican, a moderate Republican and a liberal Republican walk into bar. The bartender says...

Hi Mitt.

Mit is closer to Obama style than the others in the race. for that, it will be a tight one to the end.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

The "Obama gives me shivers up my leg" crowd has refused to acknowledge that after more than three years into his term, Obama is not responsible for anything that is wrong. Apparently, all that's bad in the world is the making of George W. Bush in absentia. I agree that there are a few things that happened on his watch that caused some problems that still linger, but to blame anything that happened after Obama took office on Bush policy is a huge fallacy.

When Obama took office, his party had a congressional supermajority that could overcome a filibuster with cloture for a full year and a huge majority for his 2nd year. The fact that his party lost the House majority after those two years is completely irrelevant. If Bush policies were a problem, then it was up to Obama to CHANGE them as soon as possible and while he could do so with little problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama mention something about "change" during his campaign?

There are only three possibilities:

1) Obama did not want to change Bush policy
2) Obama did not try to change Bush policy
3) Obama failed to change Bush policy

Because of this inaction, today's federal policy is OBAMA's policy, not BUSH's policy.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

lonewolf wrote:The "Obama gives me shivers up my leg" crowd has refused to acknowledge that after more than three years into his term, Obama is not responsible for anything that is wrong. Apparently, all that's bad in the world is the makings of George W. Bush in absentia. I agree that there are a few things that happened on his watch that caused some problems that still linger, but to blame anything that happened after Obama took office on Bush policy is a huge fallacy.

When Obama took office, his party had a congressional supermajority that could overcome a filibuster with cloture for a full year and a huge majority for his 2nd year. The fact that his party lost the House majority after those two years is completely irrelevant. If Bush policies were a problem, then it was up to Obama to CHANGE them during this time. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama mention something about "change" during his campaign?

There are only two possibilities:

1) Obama did not want to change Bush policy
2) Obama failed to change Bush policy

Either way, today's federal policy is OBAMA's policy, not BUSH's policy.

+1

Gallowglass · Post by **Gallowglass** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

lonewolf wrote:The "Obama gives me shivers up my leg" crowd has refused to acknowledge that after more than three years into his term, Obama is not responsible for anything that is wrong. Apparently, all that's bad in the world is the makings of George W. Bush in absentia. I agree that there are a few things that happened on his watch that caused some problems that still linger, but to blame anything that happened after Obama took office on Bush policy is a huge fallacy.

When Obama took office, his party had a congressional supermajority that could overcome a filibuster with cloture for a full year and a huge majority for his 2nd year. The fact that his party lost the House majority after those two years is completely irrelevant. If Bush policies were a problem, then it was up to Obama to CHANGE them as soon as possible and while he could do so with little problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama mention something about "change" during his campaign?

There are only three possibilities:

1) Obama did not want to change Bush policy
2) Obama did not try to change Bush policy
3) Obama failed to change Bush policy

Because of this inaction, today's federal policy is OBAMA's policy, not BUSH's policy.

+2

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

Gallowglass wrote:
lonewolf wrote:The "Obama gives me shivers up my leg" crowd has refused to acknowledge that after more than three years into his term, Obama is not responsible for anything that is wrong. Apparently, all that's bad in the world is the makings of George W. Bush in absentia. I agree that there are a few things that happened on his watch that caused some problems that still linger, but to blame anything that happened after Obama took office on Bush policy is a huge fallacy.

When Obama took office, his party had a congressional supermajority that could overcome a filibuster with cloture for a full year and a huge majority for his 2nd year. The fact that his party lost the House majority after those two years is completely irrelevant. If Bush policies were a problem, then it was up to Obama to CHANGE them as soon as possible and while he could do so with little problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama mention something about "change" during his campaign?

There are only three possibilities:

1) Obama did not want to change Bush policy
2) Obama did not try to change Bush policy
3) Obama failed to change Bush policy

Because of this inaction, today's federal policy is OBAMA's policy, not BUSH's policy.
+2

Still waiting for a rebuttle ?

Hawk: The best economy in decades is true ! The top companies and the top % ARE making RECORD PROFTIS. Where's the trickle down we have been promised since Reagan ?
_________________
www.showtimesoundllc.com
The opinions of Hawk are not the opinions of the Hawks Blues Band.

Back to top »

Hawk

Posted: Saturday Feb 18, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

undercoverjoe wrote:
Obamunism and big government statism:

"Today, an astounding 48 percent of all Americans are considered to be either "low income" or are living in poverty.....

Hawk:
No Shit ? !!. Top companies ARE making record profits RIGHT NOW ! Their economy is GREAT ! So who's fault is it that the laborer is getting screwed ? The ones who run an undercover class war on the middle class. The one per-centers...
_________________

Yes, I will keep driving home the same point until you (plural) get it.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

Gallowglass wrote:
lonewolf wrote:The "Obama gives me shivers up my leg" crowd has refused to acknowledge that after more than three years into his term, Obama is not responsible for anything that is wrong. Apparently, all that's bad in the world is the makings of George W. Bush in absentia. I agree that there are a few things that happened on his watch that caused some problems that still linger, but to blame anything that happened after Obama took office on Bush policy is a huge fallacy.

When Obama took office, his party had a congressional supermajority that could overcome a filibuster with cloture for a full year and a huge majority for his 2nd year. The fact that his party lost the House majority after those two years is completely irrelevant. If Bush policies were a problem, then it was up to Obama to CHANGE them as soon as possible and while he could do so with little problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama mention something about "change" during his campaign?

There are only three possibilities:

1) Obama did not want to change Bush policy
2) Obama did not try to change Bush policy
3) Obama failed to change Bush policy

Because of this inaction, today's federal policy is OBAMA's policy, not BUSH's policy.
+2

+3

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

If the US has rising gas prices why do we export so much fuel ? So Big oil can KEEP the prices high.]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 52298812/1

QUOTE: Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.

— The volume of fuel exports is rising. The U.S. is using less fuel because of a weak economy and more efficient cars and trucks. That allows refiners to sell more fuel to rapidly growing economies in Latin America, for example. In 2011, U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products, up from 40 million gallons per day a decade earlier. UNQUOTE

Must be Obama's fault...

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

I don't believe it is big oil keeping the prices high for second. Especially since they make so little in profit. I feel it is the embargo in the gulf and the fact that dipshit obama is insisting on getting it from other countries.

I know you barry lovers will never admit to that. You get too much of a shiver up your leg every time he talks.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

MSNBC, I sure do watch it. Are they one sided ? Sure are. Do I get facts thrown in with the rhetoric that I wouldn't get from Fox / Limbaugh. Sure do !

Limbaugh, I listen to him every chance I get. Is he one sided ? Sure is. Do I get facts thrown in with the rhetoric I wouldn't get on MSNBC. Sure do !

If you only listen to ONE SIDE, you loose !

I'd be glad to have a daily run down on the lies you claim MSNBC uses and the lies I claim Limbaugh uses. Any takers ?

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

Hawk wrote:MSNBC, I sure do watch it. Are they one sided ? Sure are. Do I get facts thrown in with the rhetoric that I wouldn't get from Fox / Limbaugh. Sure do !

Limbaugh, I listen to him every chance I get. Is he one sided ? Sure is. Do I get facts thrown in with the rhetoric I wouldn't get on MSNBC. Sure do !

If you only listen to ONE SIDE, you loose !

This I agree with. YOu have to listen to all sides to form your own opinion.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

f.sciarrillo wrote:
Hawk wrote:MSNBC, I sure do watch it. Are they one sided ? Sure are. Do I get facts thrown in with the rhetoric that I wouldn't get from Fox / Limbaugh. Sure do !

Limbaugh, I listen to him every chance I get. Is he one sided ? Sure is. Do I get facts thrown in with the rhetoric I wouldn't get on MSNBC. Sure do !

If you only listen to ONE SIDE, you loose !
This I agree with. YOu have to listen to all sides to form your own opinion.

Like

But you don't watch MSNBC do you ?

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

Hawk wrote:
f.sciarrillo wrote:
Hawk wrote:MSNBC, I sure do watch it. Are they one sided ? Sure are. Do I get facts thrown in with the rhetoric that I wouldn't get from Fox / Limbaugh. Sure do !

Limbaugh, I listen to him every chance I get. Is he one sided ? Sure is. Do I get facts thrown in with the rhetoric I wouldn't get on MSNBC. Sure do !

If you only listen to ONE SIDE, you loose !
This I agree with. YOu have to listen to all sides to form your own opinion.
Like

But you don't watch MSNBC do you ?

Yes, I do occasionally. So I can get more than one side of the story. I mostly watch CNN, but flip between it; fox and MSNBC.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

f.sciarrillo wrote:I don't believe it is big oil keeping the prices high for second. Especially since they make so little in profit. I feel it is the embargo in the gulf and the fact that dipshit obama is insisting on getting it from other countries.

I know you barry lovers will never admit to that. You get too much of a shiver up your leg every time he talks.

So what is your response to the USA Today article ? Did you readt it ?

I'm a liberal. Obama just happens to me on my side. Not the opposite way around...

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

f.sciarrillo wrote:
Hawk wrote:
f.sciarrillo wrote: This I agree with. YOu have to listen to all sides to form your own opinion.
Like

But you don't watch MSNBC do you ?
Yes, I do occasionally. So I can get more than one side of the story. I mostly watch CNN, but flip between it; fox and MSNBC.

I also listen to Rush, occasionally. When I am in the mood. He pretty much says that same thing everyday. So missing a day or two is missing much.

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

Hawk wrote:
f.sciarrillo wrote:I don't believe it is big oil keeping the prices high for second. Especially since they make so little in profit. I feel it is the embargo in the gulf and the fact that dipshit obama is insisting on getting it from other countries.

I know you barry lovers will never admit to that. You get too much of a shiver up your leg every time he talks.
So what is your response to the USA Today article ? Did you readt it ?

I'm a liberal. Obama just happens to me on my side. Not the opposite way around...

First: I want to see it from another source as well.

Second: It is a good thing if it is true.

Third: I don't believe it is the reason prices are so high.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wednesday Feb 22, 2012

So...What do you think about Oil shipping fuel in record numbers while the price of gas is so high ? In other words, they are over stocked. But rather than cut prices they raise prices and sell off the excess. I thought increased supply and decreased demand caused prices to fall

. Actually I know better than that, as I have explained that to lonewolf over and over.