Fox News Watch Bashes Non-coverage of Biden's Crisis Prediction

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

One of the finest examples of media bias this campaign season occurred last Sunday when Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Biden guaranteed an international crisis would befall our nation in six months if Obama is in the White House, and the American press almost completely ignored his warning.

To give you an idea of just how absurd the lack of coverage concerning this event was, the entire panel on Saturday's "Fox News Watch" agreed that this shows just how in the tank the press are for the junior senator from Illinois.

Even the left-leaning Kirsten Powers said "if there's any doubt there was a double standard in this race, it is completely laid to rest by this because there is no way that this can be ignored."

I couldn't agree more (h/t Johnny Dollar):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

JON SCOTT, HOST: This week on FOX "News Watch," Joe Biden says some surprising things about his running mate. Did the media try to ignore them? [...]

On the panel this week, Jane Hall of the American University; syndicated columnist Cal Thomas; Jim Pinkerton, contributing editor and writer for the "American Conservative" magazine; and Kirsten Powers, "New York Post" columnist and FOX News analyst.

I'm Jon Scott. FOX "News Watch" is on right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE BIDEN, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We are about to elect a brilliant 47-year old president of the United States of American. Remember, I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT: That's vice presidential candidate Joe Biden speaking Sunday at a Democratic fund-raiser.

All right. You wrote a column about this, Kirsten. You were pretty tough on your fellow Democrat. Did they give him a pass on those remarks?

KIRSTEN POWERS, "NEW YORK POST" COLUMNIST & FOX NEWS ANALYST: Yes, I think they did. I think I was tougher on the media than Biden because we don't really know -- Biden hasn't actually given us any explanation of this. The media, if there's any doubt there was a double standard in this race, it is completely laid to rest by this because there is no way that this can be ignored. What he said, he goes into such detail, if you listen to the whole thing, read the entire transcript. It's not he's talking about John McCain or barrack Obama will be tested. He's talking specifically barrack Obama will be tested.

SCOTT: That seemed to be the Democratic Party spin after the remarks generated some attention. He was talking theoretically about whoever gets elected.

KIRSTEN: He did say Barack Obama has a steel spine and people will realize he can handle it. But that was after this lengthy exposition on how we're going to have some international incident.

CAL THOMAS, SYDICATED COLUMNIST: He went further. He tried to inoculate Obama and himself because he said, in the next sound bite, which was also ignored by the mainstream media, look, he's going to make decisions when we are threatened, and some of you will think they're wrong, but they're not wrong. Trust us anyway.

This is messy and a cult-like devotion and it's meant to insulate himself from any criticism of the media should he make wrong decisions.

SCOTT: I guess the scary part about it is that Biden does have access, as you pointed out in your column, to the same intelligence that George W. Bush does.

THOMAS: Yes. He probably came right out of a briefing. Of course, Biden can't hold anything in. The minute he knows something, it goes to the mouth and out to everybody.

SCOTT: Why didn't it get more coverage? Why didn't it get more coverage?

JANE HALL, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: I think it really gets to the fact that people, as she said in her column, people have an opinion about Sarah Palin as they had an opinion about Dan Quayle. They think Biden -- they know Biden. He's been around. And it was shocking. And he also said you're not going to like the economy in a year. The guy -- it is -- you could psycho analyze it. You could say it was refreshing candor or you could say, my God, what does he believe about the man he's running with. Maybe there's some envy there. You can psycho analyze this.

Very little coverage of it. I think it does demonstrates not that they're in the tank for Obama, but that they think they know Biden and they've already forgiven him. So he will never get caught on this.

JIM PINKERTON, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR & COLUMNIST, "AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE": Let me get Jane's argument straight. People out there...

HALL: People, the media. Our media! Mea Culpa.

PINKERTON: Oh, let me clarify that. It's not there's a double standard. It's they like Biden and don't like Palin. I see.

HALL: I agree!

(CROSSTALK)

HALL: I'm agreeing with you!

PINKERTON: This might explain why it is that according to the Pew Center, the public, by a 70-9 ratio, think the press wants Obama to win. Why the Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that the negative coverage on McCain is four times the positive coverage. I think the pattern is emerging here.

SCOTT: Kirsten, what would have been the coverage if Palin had made those remarks?

POWERS: I can't even imagine. I really can't even imagine. I think it would be front page news.

THOMAS: No, they're focusing on her clothes.

POWERS: I think we would have heard the entire clip over and over again. The economy part isn't even being discussed. The whole thing was sort of jarring if you read it thinking I'm a Democrat, I'm voting for Barack Obama. I'm thinking what is he talking about and does he have information we don't know about.

SCOTT: Why is it the Democrats only tell the truth in fund-raisers when they think nobody's listening.

THOMAS: Let me pick up on Jim's point though because it's a very good one. The Pew Center report that showed huge numbers of the American people don't believe what they're getting from the media. Now, in any other industry, could you afford to disrespect your consumers whether you're selling hamburgers or gasoline or clothes? This is amazing and we see the numbers continue to decline, particularly at the broadcast networks and newspapers. And yet they continue to spill out this dribble even though the customers aren't buying it.

SCOTT: And wonder why subscriptions are dropping.

THOMAS: Exactly.

Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

kirsten

Well, you've done it...you have eliminated chances you're going to be invited to all the cocktail parties in Georgetown over the next four years....

If you need someone to chug with, give me a call....

Like Bush was tested?

Within three months of Bush taking office we had the incident with a Chinese jet. Within nine months the terrorists attacked. Recall that the 1993 WTC bombing occurred less than one month after Clinton took office.

changed my mind

You're right. Obama is dreamy and I'm voting for him.

That wasn't the point

If you want a reason not to vote for McCain, I suggest you read the 17 page article he wrote in 1973. U.S. News & World Report, the original publisher, has it online.

In it, John McCain says, on his fourth day in captivity, in order to get medical treatment "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."

The only thing I was saying with my post is that Biden is probably right. Presidents get "tests" all the time, Bush and Clinton certainly did, and any sane adversary would try something against a new President rather than a seasoned one. It is to be expected. It is normal. And, because it is expected and normal, it does not need to be the center of the debate.

Clinton tested?

AQ attacked this country, or its interests, FIVE TIMES while Clinton was CIC.

He did NOTHING.

I couldn't help but notice you pointed out the 1st WTC bombing took place shortly after Clinton took office.

Apparently he didn't even notice it, as he was unable to to bring himself to put away the cigar long enough to even pay a visit to NYC after the attack.

Clinton was tested five times and failed them all. Somehow I doubt McCain would have done similarly. 

-Dave

In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.

You're Right

Clinton was tested 5 times.  The problem was, he failed the first test, which brought about the rest of them.  According to Joe, Obama is going to have the same problem, he'll be tested and we won't necessarily agree with what he does.  Does that mean he's going to try and treat it as a criminal case again?  Well, we saw how that worked.  Can you say 5 more times? 

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

What is a military occupation, other than a police action?

Pbthinker: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

"AQ attacked this country," They did, And so............

Wheres OBL? Oh yeah , bush don't spend any time on him. That he took the eye off the ball is undefensible.

Almost none of us here are voting "for" McCain.

Almost none of us here are voting "for" McCain.  Many are voting "against" Uh-uh-uhbama, and some such as myself, are voting McCain just to give Palin an advantage in the 2012/2016 primary.

 

"Dewey defeats Truman!"  --Chicago Truibune, 1948

Let me get this straight

Let me get this straight, Josh SN. Is your point really this:  McCain, after being tortured in a POW camp says that he will give military information in exchange for stone age medical treatment and that is some indication on his lack character compared to Obama?  Did you know that he was offered a chance to leave the POW camp by his captors that he turned down in a show of loyalty to his fellow American POWs? 

 Compare that to Obama who has thrown several of his friends (Rev. Wright, etc) under the bus, due to the intense torture of, er,   media scrutiny?     

Is that your point?  Really?

Anchor89

Many of the POW's turned that deal down. Many were offered "early release" but they would have had to sign some confession and make disloyal statements. If he would have, he would have violated the Code of Conduct of the military and risked court marshal and an end to his career. McCains classmate was also a POW. Butler is his name. He,like numerous others, refused the offer.

Um, he didn't actually give

Um, he didn't actually give them any military information. He held out the carrot of military information in order to try to get taken to a hospital, then he passed out.

As I recall, when actually pressed for information about men in his unit, he gave the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. I imagine he had something like that in mind -- feed them a line of bullshit just to get some medical care.

And THAT is a reason, in your eyes, to vote instead of a commie-loving baby-hating egomaniac who is selling the election to foreign donors? 

Um, he didn't actually give them any military information?

Um, he actually told them alot more than that. The ship he was on. The mission target, The number of raids he had flown, His squadron number. He also was quoted as saying that the war "was moving to the advantage of the North Vietnam and the United States appears to be isolated" only two weeks after he was captured.

None of the info he gave

None of the info he gave about his target, ship and number was any real use to the Vietnamese, as for the "quote" you can put that back where you pulled it out from: your ass.

jeffro

I don't think you are familiar with any factual information concerning the events in question. The NVA was familiar with personal information on all our pilots and often spoke to some of them on a first name basis over the radio during missions. They targeted our aces and pilots that were veterans in the theater of operations. When they captured McCain, They already knew his ship, his father's identity, and all the other info McCain supposedly gave. If you have any other criticisms of the Vietnam war send them to Hanoi Jane and rice-butt Hanoi John, proud owner of three BUGUS purple hearts. I am embarrassed to put the names of these two traitors in the same post with a true hero John McCain.

you can put that back where you pulled it out from: your ass.

Actually that is a quote that was reported in the NYT when it happened back in the day. Sorry. Can't put the truth back. :-)

Fair warning, jeffy

This isn't DKos nor Huffpo.

We neither encourage nor desire the likes of that last post of yours here.

Keep it up at your own peril.

 

In his own words (19 seconds):  This man is qualified to be VP?

"Keep it up at your own peril."

I am sure that you don't desire or like ANY thing I post here. And I am Likin' That! You Betcha.;-)Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone

Make links to back up your

Make links to back up your assertions and quotes when they are volatile like that one.  If they check then you are ok if they don't you are relegated to Troll status.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Does anybody else

here crickets chirping? 

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Biden Apologist alert

Josh SN,  Biden was clear in stating that Obama's youth and inexperience (like JFK's) would be the cause of the international crisis.  He also warned that Obama's response would not seem to be the correct one and that a year after the election Obama's popularity would be low.  This has got to be the most sensible thing Biden has said since he said that Obama's vote to cut off funding for the troops would put our soldiers in danger. 

The entire speech was about lowering expectations for an Obama Presidency and Biden did not know at the time that members of the press were there when he said this. I am not sure if this admission by Biden says more about Obama or Biden. I am really beginning to think that Biden either has a mental problem or he is hitting the sauce.

 

Oh, yeah, the Chinese jet.

Oh, yeah, the Chinese jet. That was really earth shattering, so earth shattering I bet if you asked 500 Americans about the "Chinese jet incident" they would respond with, "The what?" I had to look it up to remember myself.

As for "nine months" that had nothing to do with testing Bush. That plan was already in place and the terrorists knew they could execute it and were going to, irregardless of who was President.

The fact is, the reason Obama would be tested is because he excudes weakness and accomodation, our enemies will walk all over this cream puff, and they know it. And Biden couldn't help himself and leaked out this truth, irregardless of the "brilliance" of Obama. And this international crisis will be more far reaching and catrostrophic than a climsy 1993 bombing attempt.

stop making sense

stop making sense ......nothing Obama has ever said gives me the confidence that he is the kind of tough that our enemies respect .... there are people in this world who you are able to talk to but with most of the enemies that the western world faces are not  the talking type .. to those you can talk with then talk as Reagan talked "Peace through Strength" dont talk as Carter talked which was through weakness ......to those whose only language is violence then speak it with impunity ..

Biden is the Prophet with Plugs .... he knew in the primary that Obama isnt experienced nor tough enough to be President  just like he knows now that our enemies see the same Obama that he sees

I'm not sure what's more

I'm not sure what's more chilling - censorship imposed by the government (the Fairness Doctrine or Obama freezing out media who don't tow the line, etc.) or the self-censorship by the Mainstream Media of anything that might be negative towards Obama, now and in the future. Either way, there's a cold wind beginning to blow...

McNotObama '08

censorship imposed by the government?

Fairness Doctrine is not  censorship. Freezing out  media who don't tow the line? I think this administration is guilty of that.Bush's '09 budget freezes broadcasters - Entertainment News, Business News, Media - Variety  

Public Broadcasting?

Now why in the world would we need "public" broadcasting?  Probably the same reason Airhead America went tits up and Ethonol needs a subsidy. Because these liberal programs cannot stand on their own in the free market. You know why? People don't want or need them! And if you are going to argue PBS is non biased, you came to the wrong blog pal!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

mm, I don't post much on

mm,
I don't post much on Saturdays or Sundays. I see the left sends in a different set of trolls for the weekend shift. They aren't any better than the M-F crew. The "Fairness Doctrine" revival - designed to silence talk radio - "isn't censorship" - wow, what a well-crafted rebuttal.
It's not enough for them that we have to listen to this crap on the MSM and read it in the papers - they insist on coming here and shoveling it at us directly.

McNotObama '08

If I wanted to read your

If I wanted to read your left wing talking point opinion, I'd watch Keith Olbermann.

McNotObama '08

Jeffro, you couldn't define censorship correctly...

...with written instructions and a ten minute head start.

"Fairness" Doctrine not censorship? Like hell it isn't.

The Fairness Doctrine is only aimed at talk radio, not the television or print media. This means that the government is telling the radio broadcasters what they may or may not broadcast.

That is government censorship all the way.

Your link is interesting, given that the first sentence refers to PBS. Government failing to fund PBS is NOT censorship, for two reasons:

1) The government is not telling PBS what they can or cannot broadcast, as they are trying to do with talk radio.

2) Where does the US Constitution authorize the federal government to use the police powers of government to force taxpayers to fund PBS?

If PBS cannot survive in a free market, as does talk radio (which doesn't require one penny of taxpayer money to exist) then it should disappear.

-Dave

In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.

I respectfully disagree.

The Govt. has put their lackeys in to key positions at PBS. They are now influenced by the administration. The govt. will  NOT be telling Rush what he CAN or CANNOT broadcast. You are wrong. They will have to give some time for rebutal or another view point. Not censorship. See?

scorecard

R D: 1

troll: 0

 

 

"Dewey defeats Truman!"  --Chicago Tribune, 1948

Troll?

Not a troll.  Just like to engage people in discussion. Do you ever partake?

Yes. Troll.

Do you ever partake?

I love it when you guys point empty weapons at me!

Just like to engage people in discussion.

With a dishonest comparison of government funding of PBS, to a an FCC policy of regulating privately run Radio stations.

 

 

"Dewey defeats Truman!"  --Chicago Tribune, 1948

Free, this guy's been busted as a liar...

Please see this for a clarification about our little troll friend. Anything he has to say from here on needs to be taken with a grain of BS...

Thanks bloo. I thought

Thanks bloo.

I thought somethink smelled with that guy.  ;-)

 

"Dewey defeats Truman!"  --Chicago Tribune, 1948

Liar? No.

I have been checking this site out for a few years. I Just said six years for some reason. Not intentional. My mistake. I all ready apologized for it earlier. Why didn't you say that?

Jethro (sic), when the

Jethro (sic), when the government FORCES a private, yes PRIVATE business to air programs that are counterproductive to their bottom line, that is inappropriate intervention. 

Let me put it another way...would you let the GOP take your children for half the day so they could counter the drivel you would teach them?  Why should your children only hear one side of a political philosophy? Oh, and you would have to pay the GOP for any expenses incurred. Sounds pretty fair doesnt it? 

Fair enough, But so is the bailout- inappropriate intervention.

All I said was it's not Censorship and it would not stop Rush from saying whatever he says to his dittobots, or whatever they are, People say CENSORSHIP! It's not. Kev, You seem like a smart guy. I know you understand the difference I point out. They think it would be silenceing Rush. It's nothing of the sort. Thanks

Jeffro, whether you mean to

Jeffro, whether you mean to or not, you appear to insist on fighting a battle of wits while unarmed.  Troll on, oh moonbat, troll on.

 

Jeffro Dull

"With a dishonest comparison of government funding of PBS, to an FCC policy of regulating privately run Radio stations."

- Free Stinker (and genius Palin prognosticator in August)

Jeff, you lost this debate. You'll lose more in the future, too. Just giving you the heads up.

 

You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!

 

JEFFRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, Jeffro, I think I hear Granny a' hollerin.'

LOL-I think she done found a turd a' floatin' out thar in th' cee-mint pond!

-Dave

In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.

jeffro, or should I say Obamatroll # 2 (Josh is Obamatroll # 1)

The govt. will  NOT be telling Rush what he CAN or CANNOT broadcast. You are wrong. They [will have to] give some time for rebutal or another view point.

LOL-You just rebutted the first sentence of your comment with your second.

If Rush HAS TO do anything during his broadcasts he would not otherwise do, this is the government forcing him to do it!

Do you see the government forcing Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, or anyone else in the MSM to give equal time to the other side?

You need to read the"Fairness" Doctrine thoroughly, as it appears you are profoundly ignorant of its contents.

The people behind this are in no way interested in "fairness." If they were, they would require "fairness" on the part of the print and TV media.

They aren't.

They are going singularly after talk radio for one reason, and one reason only:

TO STIFLE DISSENT!

-Dave

In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.

You might not understand

The rebutal or other viewpoint would not have to be ON RUSH'S PROGRAM.  His program is not altered in any way. Unless he does it himself. It would come before or after his show. Get It.? I knew ya could. It's not censorship. Good Greif, even Noel would tell you that.

So your thought is that the

So your thought is that the broadcaster has to air content they don't support?  If they can't acquire ad revenue from this, they stand to lose money and listeners due to "fairness." It might not attack Rush directly, but it hits those who carry him.  Besides, giving the government the jurisdiction to edit content of a media source IS by definition stifling free speech and we doubt it would be left to rest at only requiring seperate programming.  Please tell me how the whole premise here isn't unconstitutional?  If the left wants a voice on talk radio, they can either create their own station or show the right wing broadcasters how they would profit off the alternative programming.  Afterall, we capitalists are more interested in money than ideology and standards, right?

 

 

 

»→ Jeffro

Jeffro's down at the cement pond gettin' all horsey with Ellie's critters.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Broadcasters air content

Broadcasters air content on OUR AIRWAVES. You have to understand that they do not OWN any fraquencies. As a result they should be held accountable if they want to use OUR (WE the PEOPLE) airwaves to spread ideological propaganda. That is what the debate about a FAIRNESS DOCTRINE is all about. IF Clear channel OWNED those frequencies, The issue would be moot. See the difference?

You posted this Non-sense

"giving the government the jurisdiction to edit content of a media
source IS by definition stifling free speech and we doubt it would be
left to rest at only requiring seperate programming.
"                 Nonsense. No editing involved. Why are you saying that? By DEFINITION?  Where is the stifling of free speech? You didn't think you could just spew propaganda on the radio without being called on it did you?  Those media sources don't OWN that frequencyTo Lie about me without me being able to defend myself.  I don't own a FCC license and can't get a transmittor working right now to refute your lies. So since you are only renting that airwave. You have to allow me a rebutal. Sound Fair?

Interesting take on

Interesting take on things.  Your idea that the Bush administration has much, if any, control over PBS is easily written off by the amount of scrutiny they get from that station.  Have you ever listened to Rush?  As egotistical as the man is, he does give time to liberals to voice their opinions.  Of course he tears down the arguments against him point by point and spends much of the show giving his own views and opinions, but the other side is given a chance roughly 10% of the time (on average).  Compare this to the majority of print media and television broadcast media.  Both are echo chambers of liberal talking points.  Olbermann is about the left's version of Rush, and he doesn't tolerate alternative viewpoints on his show. 

So, can you tell me why this "fairness doctrine" is specifically targeting conservative radio when other sources of media are as or more biased?  Why is it the government's job to force a private institution to say something they aren't interested in saying?  When they funded air america, what was the result?  Was it fairness?  Have you noticed that nobody here is really asking for the so-called "fairness doctrine" to be applied to the other sources of media that we see heavy bias in?  We begrudge the effect such bias has, but we don't want the government to have control over what we are presented with.  That would be how socialist nations work.  The markets allow for competition in the news media, and offering a differing point of view attracts those who disagree with the primary tone.  FOX does well based on this fact and liberal radio has equal opportunity to succeed so long as they can get listeners and advertisers.

I apologize for the long rant here, but there's several logical fallacies here that I had to weigh in on.

Logical Fallacies

Do you deny that cheney/bush have put their people in posistion there?     Destroying PBS

Remember, To question your governments actions is your Duty as a Patriot.  The airwaves are not Clear Channels to use or abuse without rebuttal.

WRONG AGAIN! Sorry.

1) Broadcasters don't OWN the airwaves. They cannot trash someone without that someone having the chance to defend themselves.                                                                                      2)Where does the US Constitution authorize the federal government to use the police powers of the government to Tap my phones, monitor my internet email, or render me off the street to another country, indefinately, without probable cause? See the can of worms you open up. You would have to defend unAmerican bush policy.      PBS will never dissapear unless the right wing radicals whine and cry enough.             

Hey, everybody, Jeffro has emerged from the cement pond!

Broadcasters don't OWN the airwaves.

Neither does the government.

They cannot trash someone without that someone having the chance to defend themselves.

Tell that to ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCCNBCPBSNYTWAPOLATIMESAJCSFCHRON.

Where does the US Constitution authorize the federal government to use the police powers of the government to Tap my phones.

So, your phone is being tapped? That's what happens when you place calls to anyone abroad who has known connections to terrorists.

...monitor my internet email.

Google CARNIVORE and ECHELON.

-Those were Billy Jeff & Al's ideas, BTW, and I bet you had absolutely NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THOSE TWO PROGRAMS WHEN THEY WERE GOING ON, DID YOU?

Hypocrite.

...or render me off the street to another country, indefinitely, without probable cause?

Been pointing loaded weapons at any US military personnel? Been trying to plant any explosives under old people down at the bazaar? 

See the can of worms you open up.

No, but I see the a$$-kicking I am currently delivering on you.

You would have to defend unAmerican bush policy.

Oh, I get it. You and the rest of the America-hating surrender monkeys would rather we just sit here with our heads up our behinds, blind as a bat, wringing our hands while we wait for the next terrorist attack.

Of course, if we were to be hit with another attack, you would probably be the first troll to swerve into this site and blame that attack on Bush. 

To hear you mindless idiots (and that is exactly what you are) talk, we should have refrained from spying on our enemies in WW I and WW II, right? After all, as you lefties see it, spying isn't faaaaaaaair, is it?

Is that why Jihad Jimmy practically castrated our intelligence gathering capabilities, even though he was SINGULARLY RESPONSIBLE FOR RENEWING A 1400 YEAR-OLD CONFLICT?

Maybe, just maybe, if after the first WTC bombing, that complete waste of sperm that is Billy Joe Bob Bubba Clinton had bothered to employ the technology we have available to us, instead of playing hide-the-cigar with a fat-a$$ed idiot intern, the subsequent five AQ attacks, and particularly the 9/11 attacks (in which two people I knew were killed) might have been thwarted.

When the Islamic horde eventually manages to prevail against Western society (and they are far closer to pulling that off than most people realize) it will be head-up-their-behind weenies like you who will have aided them in their cause.

-Dave

The MSM is the 21st Century version of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda

Well said, Dave!

Remember, the litmus test for unwashed liberals...if it's good for the USA, they're against it.  If it's bad for the USA, they are for it.

Pretty simple.  Hey Jeffro, don't you have a war to be protesting or something?

Jeff Lebowski

www.angrywhitedude.c...

Litmus Test?

What are you for or against? Do you think I don't want whats best for this country?  I question my elect reps. when they want to do something in our name. I don't just believe every thing I am told by the Administation. Some people have for 7 and a half years. I'm not that trusting or gullible. Some are. There's one born every minute.

Dave !!!!!

You're magnificent post has inspired me...

Insufferable Jeff - Take a moment and contact President Bush. For once, be a liberal that mans-up and THANKS him for, A) protecting this great nation from what was a fast-growing global threat for decades, the cancerous spreading of radical Islam with groups waging Jihad, and B) taking it to them and dismantling Al Qaeda quite effectively, removing a serious threat, and also establishing two democracies in key countries in the heart of the Middle East.

Here's where you can send your words of gratitude to Bush and his administration:

http://www.whitehous...

 

You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!

 

Mr. Shy

Thank him for lying to me?   He campained on the issue that we were NOT in the business of nation building.                                  Thank him for putting our troops in an untenable situation where they are providing security for Un- American corporations that pay no taxes in this country, so they can continue to steal our tax dollars and do shoddy work? No I won't be thanking him for that.                                                                                             Thank him for an unending US military occupation that is nothing more than a police action?  No I won't be thanking him for that.                                                                                                       Thank him for Suspending Habeus Corpus and shredding the Fourth Amendment? Can't see thanking him for that.                                                                                                                         For allowing torture on suspects that are eventually released for lack of evidence?  No I won't be thanking him for something that does nothing but create more reason for anger aimed at the US.                                                                                                                                                                                           Thank him for quietly moving off the world stage into obscurity on Jan 20th?  Yes.

MR. Helm I have to disagree. Respectively or course.

Neither does the government.-   WE the People ARE the government. Did you think this was a fascist dictatorship?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Tell that to ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCCNBCPBSNYTWAPOLATIMESAJCSFCHRON.  That is why the FD only pertains to Radio airwaves.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Been pointing loaded weapons at any US military personnel? Been trying
to plant any explosives under old people down at the bazaar?
- Don't have to. They don't need a reason, just cheney/bush say so.                                                                                                                                                            Of course, if we were to be hit with another attack, you would probably be the first troll to swerve into this site and blame that attack on Bush. - Well, he never even tried to secure the borders or the ports,Who should I blame?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Is that why Jihad Jimmy practically castrated our intelligence
gathering capabilities, even though he was SINGULARLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
RENEWING A 1400 YEAR-OLD                                                                                       CONFLICT?
-I don't know if Carter castrated any intellegence gathering capabilities, But I know that cheney/bush Did when they ruined a CIA operation. For petulant child like revenge.                                                                                                               When the Islamic horde eventually manages to prevail against Western
society (and they are far closer to pulling that off than most people
realize) it will be head-up-their-behind weenies like you who will have
aided them in their caus
e.  They will only prevail if you continue to hide under your bed. Enlist. You can help do something for the cause.     Where is OBL?

RD... Let me know if you

RD...

Let me know if you can find an argument in this one. Jeffro baffles me!

 

Is Obama A Racist?

 

 

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

 

Jeffro

"Where is OBL?"

Great question. Where IS that man? We haven't heard/seen him in, gosh, ages....

Oh, you know what? He most likely is in a far off land, called deadland -- a place where dead people are.

Also, we're not seeing much Al Qeada news these days, are we? They're not MAKING much news. There's not a whole lot of them left, and they don't have the sanctuaries they once had in the comfy, cozy BJC-lead '90's.

Btw, have you contacted the White House and thanked them? 

"For petulant child like revenge. "

You liberals are just too much sometimes. Calling a president a petulant child. You know the word "projection", right? 

 

You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!

 

You must be joking, jeffro.

Tell that to ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCCNBCPBSNYTWAPOLATIMESAJCSFCHRON.  That is why the FD only pertains to Radio airwaves. - jeffro

This is the most asinine reply you could have come up with. You REALLY don't get it. Do you?

Here's a thought!! Let's apply the FD to everything BUT radio. How does that sound to YOU. What a complete ... ohnevermind.

Good question for Obama

For those in the MSM who are trying to prove they aren't biased (if there are any) the following are some questions for Obama or Biden:

1) Do you support the Fairness Doctrine? Is it a violation of the First Amendment?  Why or why not?

2) Under such a doctrine how would you characterize the following (left or right politically)?

a) Reading the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence on the air.

b) Reading the Bible on the air.  Would it matter if Rev. Wright does the reading?  What about Pat Robertson?

c) Reading the speeches of President John F. Kennedy on the air.

If any of these are to the right of center, what would be appropraite balance on the left?

Jeffro

How can you say"The fairness doctrine" is not censorship? What is wrong with rewarding shows that are the most profitable?

He's got my vote

Shawn,

Thanks for the question.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with rewarding profitable shows. That gets to the point. If the show is really popular, It will be successful with or without a mandate that says they will have their feet held to the fire as far as factual misrepresentation is concerned.It is NOT censorship. No part of the F.D. dictates what can or can not be said on the air. Rush can continue EXACTLY like he is now. No problem. It's just that people will be able to put a show on AFTERwards and address the same subjects he just got done expounding on. Get It?  Kinda like freemarket competition instead of a monopoly. If your product is superior you don't have a problem, But................   :-)

fairness doctrine

I would have to disagree, the fairness doctrine is anything but fair. I don't agree with much of what Rush Limbaugh says, but the thing is, he brings in huge ratings for the stations he is on. He is extremely profitable, much like Hannity and Dr. Laura.

Its not that Liberal talk radio has not been attempted, its just that they cannot sell it. The only liberal program I can stand is Stephanie Miller. The reason I like her is because she is funny and light hearted. Randi Rhodes, Ed Shultz and in the past Al Franken were nothing but doom and gloom and very angry people and did not get good ratings.

Can you tell me why Randi Rhodes gets to go on after Rush Limbaugh if she does not produce 1/20th of the revenue he does?

He's got my vote

Shawn, You said-"I would have to disagree,"

But you didn't give any reason why. Just that you said it's not fair.Liberal talk IS selling now. these things take time. Fox news lost millions of dollars for at least five years before they became profitable. The also had murdoch with deep pockets to keep bankrolling the network. Randi Rhodes and Ed Shultz and Tom Hartmann are giving Rush and Shawn a run for the ratings right now. It just took awhile. They do have a share of the market and it is growing.They CAN sell it. And it scares some people.

Jeffro

Sorry, but Air America was on before the 04 election. They had plenty of time. There are also many rich libs in the enertainment busines as well

Companies like Clear Channel want to make a profit instead of politics Jeffro. That is why they had Howard Stern on for so many years. They got rid of him because the fines they were paying for him was more than he was making for them.

If they can sell, it why not let it come naturally instead of forcing it on people?

He's got my vote

If they can SELL it, fine

If not (big if, BTW)....then there's no reason to mandate "equal" time vs. Rush & the big bad conservatives, right, jeff?

Randi et. al., don't scare me a bit, as long as they are playing in a market without the fairness doctrine allocating their air time.  If they can draw the audience to support their liberal spew, fine and dandy.  If not.....well....then the don't get any air time.

Like that.  Care to try again?

 

In his own words (19 seconds):  This man is qualified to be VP?

Fair enough.

I can't disagree.

Ok honestly do you think if

Ok honestly do you think if Liberal Talk Radio was huge success and Conservative Talk Radio was a non profitable enterprise would the supporters of The "Fairness Doctrine" still want it implemented and enforced ... come on now be honest ....another question should PBS have balanced programming enforced .. even though it is supposed to already be balanced it is not... Should there be a program following Bill Moyer or any other Liberal point of view .... an honest answer now remember PBS is not a commercial enterprise

It only appears in your mind that it is a monopoly because Liberal Talk Radio in most cases isnt succesfull nor profitable ... should a drug store be forced to carry in their shelves a product that the public doesnt want or is profitable for the store owner? .. that is eccence what the Fairness Doctrine is ..... If Liberal Talk Radio can make its case to the station owners that they in fact have a profitable product they should do so

 Take the Doctrine to extreme ... if a song that is political in nature receives air play should the station be required to play a song right after it that counters the opinion in the song even if the would force the station to play some that is even in its format

Pew survey says

"... according to the Pew Center, the public, by a 70-9 ratio, thinks the press wants Obama to win."

Does this mean the people are on to pro-Obama bias in the media and/or the media have abandoned all pretense of being fair or objective? I say both.

Could this be part of the reason for the recent uptick for McCain in the polls? I hope so.

Kristen Powers up

There is nothing more wonderful than a liberal noticing the halo is a street lamp, the messiah is a bisexual getting a trick from a gay guy, the incense is chain smoking stench and the cheering crowds are only those in foreign lands in glee knowing it will be easy to murder those Americans with Obama in office.

Liberals you are going to learn that wanting is not the same as having and having is not  the same as wanting when you have the Obama empty suit in place.

I'm already working on a plan to deal with Obama's health care for my citizen's protection and will seek to protect our Soldiers, but you mess this up liberals.........ain't no Conservative going to help you. You can bleed, bleed and bleed for your Marxist state to teach those dolts who have jungle fever like they had daddy  lust for Bill Clinton the meaning of what disaster you are.

Powers like Lynard Skynard can smell that smell. It will be amusing as the old Apache would say in watching them look for help and none comes.

This American won't be funding nor dying for this messiah of the Marxist state.

 

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

This American?

Sounds like you are gonna start questioning your govt. for once. Like a REAL Patriot should have been doing for the last 8 years. but your outrage of a marxist state is kinda lame,Cherry. After your guy just ushered in the biggest socialistic give away to the rich in the history of the world. Should any body have died for your messiah? May be you should enlist ? The profiteers need more security.
VetVoice:: McCain's Miserable Record of Not Supporting America's Troops and Veterans

Obama's Internet Shock Troops

I see that O-SHT (Obama's SHock Troops) are out in force.

You see folks, The One has such an imposing lead in the polls, he needs his worshipers to go all over the internet and deride McCain and especially Palin.  (once they figure out that she is why we are voting McCain.)

 

"Dewey defeats Truman!"  --Chicago Tribune, 1948

Actually the Senate ushered in...

... the biggest socialistic give away to the rich in the History of the world! 

Notice:

Clinton yea

Obama yea

It's not the bill Bush wanted, Bush didn't want any pork!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

It's not the bill Bush wanted,

Your Right. the first one he wanted was the one where Paulson had total control of 750billion with NO OVERSITE.With no governing body or court having ANY say in the implementation of the funds. But you were allright with that?

Hell no!

I was agin' it from the getgo! 

I just said it wasn't the bill Bush wanted. My point: Bush's bill did not include the pork! I didn't say I liked Bush's bill, please try and keep up!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Pork?

I was against it too. We don't HAVE 750 billion. Let the free market deal with it. The investors from then on would INSIST on regulation and oversight.

What you don't seem to comprehend...

...is this was not a free market problem. It was the government interferring in the free market on behalf of a liberal democratic "cause". Here is what the bursting housing bubble and subsuquent economic crash boiled down to: "Affordable Housing" in liberal speak turned into Main Street speak: "Giving loans to people who could not pay them back!" Look all over this site for examples given by posters to back this up. In free markets, banks don't loan to people who cannot pay them back!

"Giving loans to people who could not pay them back

What YOU don't seem to comprehend, is that NO ONE tells a bank to loan to someone it KNOWS won't be paying it back. There was no one holding a gun to their head, telling them to make bad loans. Nothing you say will change that. Sorry.

Fannie and Freddie did!

Fannie and Freddie say: give those loans we will back them up! 

Banker says: well okey dokey, as long as more people get to buy homes they can't afford and we get our money too, why not?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Mighty- You are right

We get our money too, Why not.   But that never happened before Phil Gramm removed the regulation. Why, Because Banks were responsible for collecting the monthly payments. They could not sell them to anybody.

There you go lying again Jeffro...

 "NO ONE tells a bank to loan to someone it KNOWS won't be paying it back"

NO ONE that is except the Clinton Administration...  (and please, stop with the lying...)

No one Forced those banks to make those loans.

That is all I said. If you can show me a Banker saying that he had no choice but to make those loans, Then you would be right. I don't lie. I am a truthseeker. I don't think that was very cool to call me a liar when I did not lie. I will forgive and forget for now.:-)

CRA

CRA

Oh, I forgot, you've been here 6 years now and don't lie...

From the article in the NYT-

-Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has
been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to
expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt
pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in
profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage
companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to
so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit
ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional
loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much
higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points
higher than conventional loans.-

The bottom line, "make the loans or get no business from us." No need for guns to the head.

Dude, your diatribe grows wearisome... 

 

The banks only made the loans if-

They could have FM/FM take them off their books. before Deregulation, Banks were not in the investment business. They had to service those loans themselves. They are not forced to make any loans, They did it if they didn't have to be responsible for them. And FM/FM stockholders wanted more of them. They scratched each others back. But the banks did not have to make them if they didn't want to. They still had lots of PRIME loan business.  They just got greedy. They made money just doing the paper work, and turning sub-prime loans over to F/F. The banks DID NOT have to make one single sub-prime loan if they did not want to. Prove  me wrong. YOU CAN'T.

You are simply so ignorant

You are simply so ignorant and downright naive that I cannot resist planting your nose firmly into the dung heap.

The banks were being threatened, cajoled and sued by "Community Organizers" into giving sub-prime loans to unworthy borrowers.  Well, do look!  Who was one of the Plaintiff's attorneys in this case?  None other than Barack H. Obama!

I just proved you wrong.

But you are welcome to go vote for that snake, Obama, if you like, and while you do, make no mistake that it is Liberal Democratic policies that are directly to blame for the current fianncial crisis. 

Nl207

Your link to the court docket shows that some lenders were REDLINING Blacks and minorities. That is what the suit is about. They were not loaning to blacks even if they were PRIME borrowers.The Banks DID NOT have to lend to subprime borrowers, REGARDLESS of color. Show me the results of ANY threat, cagoling, or lawsuit that stipulates banks HAVE to make loans to anyone they deem as a bad risk. There is no law or stipulation. You are proving nothing.  But you  knew that.

what a great quote!!!

SCOTT: Why is it the Democrats only tell the truth in fund-raisers when they think nobody's listening? 

 

The Axis of Taxes: Obama, Pelosi and Reid (source unknown)

Something I need to point

Something I need to point out about the Palin wardrobe brouhaha: She's not dressing for the job of Hockey Mom. She already has that job.

Remember the old adage, "You dress for the job you want"? She's dressing for the job of Vice President of the United States. Somebody who will be representing us to foreign heads of state. Somebody who NEEDS TO DRESS FOR THE JOB. Duh. Nobody wants a veep who wears off-the-rack suits from Target.

Will we ever hear about how

Will we ever hear about how much Obama's or Biden's suits cost ?

I'm sure they weren't $75 on-sale specials at Kmart.

 

"Dewey defeats Truman!"  --Chicago Tribune, 1948

And Obama spent $140,000 on

And Obama spent $140,000 on the Greek columns -- but that wasn't an elitist waste of cash!

BTW, it seems what happened is that a bunch of aides got sent on shopping sprees, since Palin didn't have the time, ran up about a $150,000 tab on stuff that they were *bringing back for her to try on*. From what I've heard a third of it got sent back as not her style or not fitting, and half of what didn't get sent back hasn't been worn and might not be.

They sent staffers to stores where you really can't go wrong, where you're not going to accidentally grab something third-rate that's gonna pill or split a seam at a crucial moment.

Makes sense, really. 

Saturday Night Live covered this

You know the bias in the media is bad when the only place I have seen coverage of this story was during last night's episode of Saturday Night Live. 

I miss Neal.

Gabler would have had the guts to completely ignore the obvious and argue that the MSM has been harder on Obama than anyone else in the race, including Hillary.

Fist

Fist,

You're so right. Wouldn't that've been great, Neal going against the entire panel INCLUDING Jane? Woulda been worth the price of admission! :-)  ns

Kirsten Powers was filling in for Alan Colmes late last week

..and her attempt to explain, make any sense of, or justify Uhhbama's tax policy was one of the weakest things I've ever seen lately. One of the few sensable liberal talking heads on TV, she seems like she's pulling for Obama just because she has to at this point. Hannity and Dick Morris just left her stammering.

 At least she's easier to look at than Alan Colmes.

Noel

First off THANKS for all the good work you do, i have become a fan of yours. What i'm askin now tho is off of this topic; I just caught part of 60 mim., they did a segment on "credit default swaps" and derivitives, which i do not understand. Anyway, they laid this finacial crisis we are in, at the feet of the "credit default swaps" and claimed the bill which made it possible came in 2000 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton with his encouragement and blessings. Can you enlighten us on any of this, as it seems to indicate the "blame" for this crisis goes a lot further back than Bush and the last 8 years, and maybe Mc./Palin could get some mileage out of it. Thanks,

 kilrod

 p.s. I am also gonna copy and paste this on a P.J. Gladnick topic and ask him the same question, as i am also a fan of his.

Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier

kilrod

kilrod,

Well, what they're talking about is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. You'll find two articles about this -- by moi -- here and here. This is INDEED an important bill as it pertains to credit default swaps which I've been telling folks here for weeks are the key to our problems.

However, also important is the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which removed the last vestiges of Glass Steagall regulations. Read about that here.

In the end, these two pieces of legislation, along with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, are indeed at the center of this entire financial crisis. If the media did a better job of informing folks of this, Bush/McCain would not be getting any of the blame for our current problems.

In fact, if Americans knew about these three pieces of legislation, as well as what Bush AND Republicans tried to do the past five years to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- along with what the Democrats have done to prevent such attempts!!! -- McCain would be up by 15 points in the polls, and we'd be talking about Republicans taking back both chambers of Congress.  ns

Are You forgetting something?

Three years ago, S. 109 was introduced. McCain was a signatory MONTHS after it died in commitee. Republicans did not even give it the old college try. To many were going with what was making money. They didn't want to kill the gravytrain. They let it die without even bringing it to the floor.  When they could have passed it when they had majority. They never even brought it up for debate. Sad.

jeffro

jeffro,

By this statement, you obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about, and are therefore a total waste of my time. Go play with somebody more at your obviously limited intellectual capacity.  ns

Your very quick to not want to discuss important facts Noel.

Noel, What statement freaked you out? And what with the disparaging words? I didn't deserve that. Look. All I was saying is this- Click on the link to see what happened to the bill.                       GovTrack: S. 190 [109th]: Text of Legislation, Introduced in Senate

Ouch! Noel 10....

Noel: 10

Jeffro: Still trying to get his shoes tied.

:-)

-Dave

In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.

Sorry,

I meant S.190, Not 109

Noel,

I know that Obama wrote to the Whitehouse and to legislators warning that they had to look in to problems in the mortgage industry and Fannie and Freddie. That is documented.  What I don't know is what "Bush AND Republicans tried to do the past five years to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" Could you find a link? Thanks.

jeffro

Hmm - I can see that I shouldn't probably do this, but here's one anyway. Dozens more should not be hard to find if you truly have an interest.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." NY Times Sept. 10, 2003.

Make sure you find your way to the bottom of the article for the usual Democratic response.

(;~/ Gary

Thanks for the link Gary.

It looks to me that the administration knew the handwriting was on the wall, even at this time. This part of the article really stood out-Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president
to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration
is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the
potential political problems associated with any new difficulties
arising at the companies
. The fact that these were GSE's puts the Administration in the position that ultimately,This was their baby and they had better start damage control, but quick. Interesting. Gary, click on the link to my post to noel about S.109 and see what due diligence the Republican controled congress worked out to solve the problem.  Thanks.

Gary

Gary,

I warned you this was a waste of time and bandwidth.  ns

Noel, That's not very Intellectually Honest

Please, Noel. Address the subject of S.190. What are you avoiding  it for? I just want YOUR honest opinion.

Thanks Noel

Thank-You for your response and the links, i am on dial-up so it'll take a spell to read up. I don't guess we should hold our breath for the msm to lay it out to the people unless it would help o-Dumb-uh-uh, thus it would already be done, which also illustrates that your take on it is right, else the msm would be all over it.

Now ole jethro(jeffro) also responded below, but did'nt post any links to back up his assertions, which, along with some of his other post leads me to believe he is probably supportin Ralf Nader and he is hopin o-Dumb-uh-uh will pull just enough votes away from Mc. to get Ralf elected.

(GRINS)  kilrod 

Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier

kilrod

kilrod,

If you need more, let me know. And, don't bother with our new troll. He knows absolutely nothing about this issue -- likely about anything, really!!! -- and is just parroting Olber-nonsense.

Not worth the time or the bandwidth.  ns

Noel,

Can you tell your minions about what you found out about S.109 in the 109th congress?  Why are you avoiding this fact? Why the disparaging words. Why the insults?  Click the link and tell us what you think. Your people are waiting for your interpretation.

Kilrod

The problem indeed starts back to 1999 and Sen. Phil Gramm and his bill to repeal the Glass-Steagal act.  To free banks of any regulation or oversight. If you do look into it I don't think Mcain will get the milage out of it that you intend. Phil Gramm is his economic advisor

You really are in the sack

You really are in the sack with the Big O Talking Points, Jeffro.  Give me a break!  You really think the current situation had anything to do with Gramm-Leach-Bliley?  Then you really are as witless as you seem to be.  That bill didn't "repeal the Glass-Steagal act", as you claim.  It merely repealed a small portion that precluded financial institutions from owning other financial institutions.  Glass-Steagal still stands, as amended.

Try again, bonehead.  Start with the CRA of '77 and work your way forward from there.  Review the '93 and '95 hearings on regulation of the GSEs, CRA renewal and update in '99, follow the money through Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Chris Dodd, Obama, Kerry, etc., read Barney Frank's statements regarding the soundness of the GSEs, and don't forget the 34 official communications President Bush sent to Congress warning them to look into regulation of the GSEs, Republican attempts to pursue additional regulation, and Democrat blockage of those attempts.  This situation is entirely, 100% the fault of the Democrats.  There's no denying it, unless, of course, facts just don't matter to you.

So, still your scabbard is empty.  But I'm sure you'll try again.

 

Hockey kid

Don't bluster. Show me where Phil Gramm Gets off the hook for the steps he took in authoring that legislation and the effects it had relating to the crisis. I will show you a link if you show me the 34 official communications. :-)

HK

HK,

Well, that's not really true, for GLB had a lot to do with the current problem. However, let's understand that it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress -- 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House. And, it was signed into law by a Democrat president As such, blaming this bill on anyone in particular is totally absurd.

However, don't minimize the importance of this deregulation to the current crisis. It is indeed a factor.  ns

Hockey kid

"Give me a break!  You really think the current situation had anything
to do with Gramm-Leach-Bliley?  Then you really are as witless as you
seem to be.
"    So quick to call me "witless". But in a short time you will be able to read about it after this plays out. Our History books will reveal how wrong you were.

Our History books will

Our History books will reveal how wrong you were.

LOL-You mean those grossly distorted history books usually written by libs?

-Dave

In order for wealth to be spread, it first must be seized.

Dave

Dave,

You missed the real significance of his comment concerning "our history books." Think about it. :-)  ns

Noel

Are you implying that I am not one of you? Some how Un American? Thats not very nice.

Bumper Sticker

Bumper sticker seen in Texas:

 'I'll keep my freedom, my guns, and my money, you can keep THE CHANGE'.

Vote for McCain/Palin 

Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier

Kilrod - something else seen in Texas today

Kilrod - something else seen in Texas today.

My folks are on a trip - and found gasoline in San Antonio for $1.99/gal. Yee ha!

Gary

There've been stations with $1.99 a gallon for a week to ten days now. Started out as one or two, but there are more now. I went to Austin over the weekend, and the cheapest I saw was $2.26/gal. It is good to be home. :) 

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Restless one

Sounds like candy here in LA - best I'm seeing is about $3.29 - Costco was a bit less, I think.

Gary

Gary,

With RBOB down below $1.50 now, even we here in Cali, Gary, should be seeing prices down in the $2.50 range...or lower. The rest of the country could be in the $2 range by Christmas.

I tried to get info from Trilby last week to support this, but she's been very busy.  ns

Lieberman: McCain will be tested

Back to the original subject; Lieberman said the exact same thing about McCain that Biden said about Obama.

Maybe the reason the media didn't pick up on what Biden said is the same reason they didn't pick up on what Lieberman said.  Looks like another tempest in a teapot for the "librul" media bashers.

Since I've submitted something contrary to what the believers here believe, I'm ready for the insults to fly - have at it.

See the Link below for Lieberman on Face the Nation in June:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgrvdZbUgmg&eurl=http://whitenoiseinsanity.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/joe-lieberman-said-this-past-summer-that-john-mccain-will-be-tested-if-he-b

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

Listen to your link again and repost.

Here is your chance to correct your lie.

Lie?

Uhm, uh, uhm.  And, I'm lying because...?

I don't know what you hear Lieberman saying that's different than Biden.

You tell me why, 007.

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack
Obama
like they did John Kennedy."
- Biden

"Our enemies will test the new president early." - Lieberman  

Lieberman said the exact same thing about McCain that Biden said about Obama. - 007memo

You do see the difference, don't you? More importantly, do you understand the context of their statements and therefore why they are worded differently?

007memo

You're sorely missing the point here, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Try and figure out WHY there's a complete blackout by the heavily-biased liberal mainstream news media... of both of these statements.

When it comes to foreign policy and national security, which of the two presidents running for office -- AND, which party -- is widely known to be more resolute and strong in this area?

- - - - - 

FYI - when you post a youtube link, you can discard everything from this point on: "&eurl=http://..." :)

 

You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!

 

Media Yawner

By "both of these statements", do you mean both Biden's and Lieberman's statements?

If so, I still gotta wonder what difference it makes to the rest of America.  I understand that it is extremely important and significant to you because you believe that Obama will fail the test miserably.  The rest of America doesn't feel the same way as you do, hence the yawn from the Media.

National Security Perceptions

"When it comes to foreign policy and national security, which of the two presidents running for office -- AND, which party -- is widely known to be more resolute and strong in this area?"

Change out the word "known" and replace it with "perceived" and you have my agreement on your statement.  Perception isn't always reality. 

"redlining" and "predatory

"redlining" and "predatory lending practices" are just leftist code words for prudent fiscal management.

The suit was about compelling Citibank to lend more money in high risk neighborhoods at the prevailing interest rates offered in low risk neighborhoods. Such actions are fiscal suicide and the banks are not going to do this willingly. In this case, government force was invoked through the courts to compel Citibank to engage in unprofitable business.

The case above was settled in favor of the plaintiffs. The government coercion applied therein directly contradicts your assertion no one was compelled to make such unsound loans.

----> I have still proven you wrong.

You have not proven anything.

Find ONE banker that will go on record saying he was forced to make an unsound loan.  Or a link to a source that proves same. Or admit that you were mistaken.(If you are capable).      Thanks.