Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
By NB Staff | December 3, 2011 | 10:47
Can we tawk?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:46am.
Well, the geniuses in DC, you know, the ones that are doing such a bang-up job of running the country, are saying things like:
"Newt can't take the scrutiny," agreed a Democrat, "and he has the personality of an angry badger."
Not just genius democrats, either. This also includes the "establishment" republicans (the non-conservative people?).
Personally I'd vote for a real live "angry badger" with rabies if the choice was between that and that RBFSOB cork socker now in the White House. Don't give me that badgers can't run for president, because the rules went out the window with Barry's election.
I am past ready for someone who is ready to go to Washington and bust heads to get some of this socialist/fascist/communist crap of the last few years placed firmly on the trash heap of history with the rest of the "social experiments" that killed millions of people in the name of "equality and redistribution of wealth."
So bring on Newt, the badger, or Honey Badger for that matter. Sharpen his claws and his teeth, and wrap a wire around his rocks really tight to see if he can get REALLY ornery!
Don't know about badgers? Watch! You'll vote for one, too.
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 12:32pm.
newt has pretty much been up to his collerctivist ars pushing the things you claim you hate: "... socialist/fascist/communist crap ... "social experiments" that killed millions of people in the name of "equality and redistribution of wealth."
China is communist crap and they've "Killed millions of people," newsbubba.
Your man newt,who you claim will "bust heads" got on all fours like a puppy dog and got his pals in Red China "Most Favored Trade Status" so that they could come over here and kick your ars and make hamburger out of your carcass.
Yea, newt is a real "free market capitalist,that is when he isn't collecting money from Fannie and Freddie and the ethanol fascists, or as they're called nowadays: GSE's.
Yea,, pard newt is big on GSE's. It says so right here in his own words:
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 12:43pm.
Thank you, Irgon.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 1:21pm.
... he still beats the Shiite out of the whack job we have now.
Hell, I'd vote for Elmer Fudd before Bambi, if that is the choice.
BTW, Newt ain't my first choice (he's not running this time), but he will get my vote if he keeps hammering the Bamster.
My "ars" loves confrontation.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:26pm.
I've said I'd vote for Howdy Doody over Obama, so we're in the same camp.
Frankly, I'm sick of all this "camaraderie" and referring to "my friend" (gag me!!). Look at how far that got John McCain.
No one seems to have a problem when The One gets angry; we need someone to stick it right back to him, a la Christie's "What the hell are we paying him for??"
If not Newt, that's what I want from WHOEVER the Republican nominee is!
Take no prisoners! Yea, I'm fed up!
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:17pm.
So bubba - I'm STILL confused after more than 3 years, and it's coming back again these days to renew my confusion. The Dems, the press, and even some 'Repubs' can call Newt an 'angry badger'...............or a 'dead corpse' ......or a 'fat nerd'.......
or whatever the heck else he's been called, and will continue to be called as long as he's in the running. But........did I ever see or hear - from the Dems, the Repubs, OR the press - call Boy Barry a 'dumb-ass monkey' or even anything else remotely derogitory in the same shallow manner as what I'm reading these days??? Hell, if memory serves we well, we couldn't even say his MIDDLE damn name!!! Much less question ANYTHING about his past......................
I dunno............I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I continue to be mystified at the total inbalance of coverage and reporting of current events............I think I need a government grant to go back to school and learn how to be politically correct and have 'gravitas' and 'nuance'.
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:49pm.
He just takes what he wants!
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 1:30pm.
Holder's DOJ dumped 2000 documents related to Fast and Furious yesterday. I know the folks at Fox, The Daily Caller and the NRA are sifting throught them. I am pretty sure they won't contain any information that links F&F to Holder and Obama unless somebody screwed up. I think Holder is supposed to testify next week. He knew that the congressional committee wouldn't have time to dig through all of them to ask questions. He thinks he is a slick bastard but I really believe before long someone will come forward and tear his house down, They didn't want people to find out about the murder of Brian Terry but we did. I hope that this is the thing that brings Obama and Holder down.
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 12:30pm.
My hands are falling off transcribing all these interviews. I tried Dragon's Naturally Speaking and it failed miserably.
Can anyone recommend voice recognition software that will take the audio of my interviews and with some level of accuracy transcribe them into text?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 12:45pm.
I have no idea, but I'll ask Aca.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 1:15pm.
I think Noel may have inadvertently picked up the Dragon edition with the 'right-wing baloney' filter.
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 1:30pm.
Vote for the American in November
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:44pm.
Is just a box full of mud and monkey poo. This is much better.
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:01pm.
LOL - I guess that Inhofe interview wore you down.
Heh, it would have probably killed me.
I don't use voice recognition software, but I know a couple of people that do.
I'll check around and see if I can come up with anything that might work better.
I suspect that if you are trying to do it off of a recording instead of a live voice that that is what may be gumming up the works.
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:10pm.
The method of recording is important. The voice recognition software companies have specific recommendations on what equipment is to be used to record a voice. Deviation from those recommendation may result in severe degradation in accuracy.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:22pm.
"---may result in severe degradation in accuracy".
Sounds like one of Jeringo's jeremiads. :o)
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:07pm.
Garbage In Garbage Out
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:07pm.
... Unless "some level of accuracy" means a 'Liberal's' brand of accuracy (ie little).
Consumer voice recognition software is in its toddler phase. It relies on a single user training the software initially and then making corrections over time to increase accuracy. The user's speaking manner has much to do with accuracy. Typical conversational speech patterns do not lend themselves easily to current voice recognition applications no matter what the ads claim. A friend of mine who is retired from the military has the best cadence for the software - well enunciated and clipped speech pattern.
Further complicating the issue for you is that the software is tuned to just a single voice pattern, making them useless for transcribing you and an interviewee simultaneously.
You can get 'good' accuracy for yourself if you work at it and have a proper microphone and computer set up, but you will experience a tremendous degradation in accuracy with the interviewee's text.
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:16pm.
....can pay for transcription services for you.
Sound like the voice to text option doesn't work.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:29pm.
The Dragon Naturally Speaking software ‘recognizes’ specific voice patterns… that is why when you set the program-up there is a test phase that the program is recording to recognize your own individual voice pattern.
I’m not sure if DNS is able to recognize multiple voices from a recording - it certainly doesn't work well if there is any background noise - so it seems to me (in my capacity as a computer know-nothing) you have three options:
1. Let the program ‘do-its-thing’ and go back and make corrections manually.
2. Type out the transcript and then read it back into DNS in your own voice and then go back and make the corrections… (note: since you have already typed the transcript, you may wish to just skip the reading it back portion).
3. Hire an ‘intern’ to type the transcripts for you.
I hope these suggestions help… or at least gives you some moral support.
- Grump :o)
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:56pm.
Charge the interns for the privilege of typing the transcript.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:10pm.
…The folks who would actually pay to do the transcriptions are not the kind of folks you could trust to produce an accurate transcription.
…On the other hand, I would gladly accept money from an intern who would be willing to do my drinking for me at finer establishments (they have to pay for their own drinks, of course) – which would give me more time to enjoy Happy-hours at my favorite ‘Dive-bar.’
- Grump :o)
Submitted by FearMonger on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:32pm.
and nobody with time to help Noel out? Hell, I'm busy raising my 2 boys but I still have time (and what's left of my carpal tunnel) to volunteer for a good cause.
Noel, if you run out of good options let me know. The rest of my body ain't so gr8 but my hearing is 20/20 ^o^ and my fingers are resilient. I'll even put on my "Proper Punctuation" cap.
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:05pm.
This is totally disgusting. The muslim o'bama's admin is now telling Israel to "get its act together" and start talking/negotiating with its neighbors.
So,,,,, let's review some of Israel's neighbors, ok?
Once again, o'bama has it all wrong, and shows his anti-Israel hatred and muslim bias. What is wrong with that man, and why can't anyone see him for what he is? Why doesn't he insist that muslims accept Israel's right to exist, instead of scolding Israel for not "seeking peace in their lifetime"?
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:26pm.
because the purple-lipped one stated in one of his books that, to paraphrase, "If the sh*t hits the fan, I will stand with my Muslim brothers".
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:42pm.
not if you read Panetta's actual speech as opposed to foxnews.com spin.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:51pm.
that you have successfully removed any doubts about Obama's relation to Islam by accusing fox.news of spin.
Man, you are good !
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:00pm.
is like accusing the Pope of being Catholic.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:06pm.
your unbiased opinion?
Submitted by FearMonger on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:12pm.
lots of spin. Like everything this 'chick' says....
The difference between Fox spin and TheRest spin is that only one is bidirectional. If TheRest gave conservative spinners as much face time as Fox gives liberal spinners then MSNBC's ratings would be EVEN MORE in the crapper than they already are. Everybody knows that leftwingers would not be able to tolerate a Bizarro Bob Beckel for more than 3 seconds.
"Spin" indeed. Lots of it on Fox. They wear it like a Badge Of Honor.
Submitted by FearMonger on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:19pm.
As I'm sitting here thinking about it, I rarely see a discussion on Fox that doesn't include a liberal pundit. The 'split-screens' are frequently employed and I can't remember ever seeing both sides occupied by the right.
On the other hand, almost every time I see the 'split-screen' on MessNBC both sides are from one camp. Can u guess which one?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:13pm.
but are you suggesting that all of the networks "spin" with the exception of Fox?
Submitted by FearMonger on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 6:57pm.
I've read enough of your posts to expect better of you than this. How do you connect the dots between what I wrote and "Fox Doesn't Spin"? How many times did I say just the opposite? Are you being intentionally obtuse or is your comprehension really that bad?
I thought it was pretty clear the first time but but but... this time I will type slowly just for you...
The difference between Fox spin (meaning the 'spin' you referred to in your 'Pope' quote above) and TheRest spin (meaning the 'spin' that comes from the running dog media***) is that only one is bidirectional (meaning that ONLY ONE actually provides 'spin' perspectives from the left AND the right).
It's not a riddle Jer. Perhaps I overestimated you.
*** running dog media - ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo and many others who carry the water for their candidate (who they have unconditionally supported) and who have made clear that there is no room for objectivity in their brand of journOlism. They bury Solyndra fast and furiously so they can concentrate on what's really important... like the republican primary frontrunner and the growing threat posed by an unwaveringly defiant Iran. Oh wait...
I guess it just depends on what your definition of 'news' is, huh Jer.
btw... do me a favor. If the best you can do to refute me is to 'not' put words in my mouth... especially 'not' put words in my mouth that are 100% CONTRARY to what I actually wrote... then don't engage me at all por favor. I'm all for spirited debate but I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss anything with someone who obviously doesn't take the time (or is unable) to comprehend what I write.
Read what I wrote again and explain to me what was so confusing or apologize for 'not' putting words in my mouth so we can start over. Otherwise please refrain from playing The Moonbat Obfuscation Game with my posts.
Thanks in advance....
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 10:25pm.
but it appears to me you are arguing that even though there is "spin" at Fox, unlike the rest of the liberal water-carrying networks where the rotation is exclusively to the left, any rotation to the right at Fox is counterbalanced by an equal and opposite rotation to the left, thereby producing--you guessed it--perfect ideological equilibrium. Finally!...the nirvana for fair and balanced news and opinion dissemination. And a dandy idea for a network slogan.
And the claim is a crashing absurdity. As is the notion that ONLY ONE network--Fox--actually provides perspectives from the left and the right.
Let me be clear: I have consistently acknowledged a leftward tilt in the MSM. I also find it regrettable that MSNBC has abandoned any claim to ideological neutrality by dropping several shows which were hosted by conservatives and replacing them with lib/progressive formats, and in doing so clearly surpassed Fox in the degree of political/philosophical imbalance in talk/news/opinion offerings.
In my view, the pre-Fox era of CNN and PBS were the best examples of reasonably balanced opinion programming. Once Fox News Channel arrived on the scene and the conservative audiences flocked en masse to the network of Murdoch and Ailes, the other broadcast entities gradually adjusted their line-up accordingly by reducing, although not eliminating, conservative input. Personally, I think it was and is a mistake. I would much prefer to watch a Crossfire-type format--where there was honest to goodness balance--instead of a Rachel Maddow or an Ed Schultz preaching to the choir. The viewing public as well as the voting public have become largely bifurcated--FoxNation versus the Rest of the Nation. And it reflects a trend and a widening political divide which I believe to be ultimately and inevitably unhealthy.
Submitted by FearMonger on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:08pm.
Yes. I will 'correct you' cuz you ARE wrong. Can you show me anywhere in what I wrote where I said anything resembling "Fox is counterbalanced by an equal and opposite rotation to the left".
I said THE SPIN IS BIDIRECTIONAL... and I made it clear what that meant.
You continue to put words into my mouth when any clear thinking person can read what was written and comprehend the meaning. If you can't grasp the truth that Fox offers both sides while others do not then that's your delusion to enjoy. I never said Fox offered 'perfect' balance.... I said that they offer SOME balance... which is a helluvalot more than can be said about the RDM.
The fact that you double-down on stoopid speaks volumes about your self-awareness and... like I said... Homey Don't Play Dat MOG (Moonbat Obfuscation Game). Give my words the respect they deserve and I will respond in kind. Keep on with putting (or 'not' putting LMAO!) words in my mouth and I will treat you EXACTLY as you deserve to be treated.
Read my post again and try try try to comprehend por favor.
Submitted by FearMonger on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:28pm.
"any rotation to the right at Fox is counterbalanced by an equal and opposite rotation to the left, thereby producing--you guessed it--perfect ideological equilibrium. Finally!...the nirvana for fair and balanced news and opinion dissemination"
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:56pm.
Are you saying that CNN and other media all went left? And it's Fox's fault? My but that sounds familiar.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:13am.
I am saying CNN, PBS, and MSNBC shifted left--particularly MSNBC--and the fact that Fox had successfully attracted an overwhelming number of conservative viewers--and a significant segment from those other networks--was a major reason for that shift. However, I don't think "fault" is the most appropriate word to use in describing or analyzing the process and the motivating factors. I'm certainly not blaming Fox.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:01am.
Point out where you have clearly and unequivocally stated in any one of your several posts on this subject that FoxNews engages in predominantly conservative spin or that, overall, it tilts to the right, and I will gladly acknowledge my lapse in reading comprehension accompanied by my sincere and unspun apology.
It was difficult slogging through your irritating condescension, the wrist-slapping lectures and moonbattery nonsense in an effort to discern just what in heaven's name was your intended point, but, in the end, I detected nothing which suggested a concession as I described in the preceding paragraph.
Submitted by FearMonger on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:32am.
Like I said.... "strawmen"
Did I ever claim to "clearly and unequivocally stated in any one of (my) several posts on this subject that FoxNews engages in predominantly conservative spin"? No. I did not.
I DID say THIS.... "If TheRest gave conservative spinners as much face time as Fox gives liberal spinners then MSNBC's ratings would be EVEN MORE in the crapper than they already are."
The fact that you are incapable of seeing the difference is telling indeed.
I originally responded to your post saying this....
"Matthew, accusing foxnews.com of spin is like accusing the Pope of being Catholic.
Your argument regarding what I said in response is the equivalent of me saying to you...
"So Jer... are you suggesting that the Pope isn't Catholic?"
Ridiculous? F*** yeah.
Your 'unspun apology' is anticipated along with my next breath.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:59am.
is your inability or paralyzing reluctance to state your position with absolute or even reasonable clarity. Your response to my Pope/Catholic comment was to refer to spin on Fox with a link to a liberal contributor as an example of such spin. Having been--until the past couple of years--a regular Fox viewer for the preceding eight or nine years, I am quite familiar with the liberal viewpoints which are allowed. That was never the issue.
Your posts have degenerated from general incoherency to flailing at shadows.
Take a deep breath and try again.
Submitted by FearMonger on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:20pm.
My comment was unambiguous. You don't have to read between the lines to understand this...
""Spin" indeed. Lots of it on Fox. They wear it like a Badge Of Honor."
And btw... if THIS is true...
"Your response to my Pope/Catholic comment was to refer to spin on Fox with a link to a liberal contributor as an example of such spin."
then WTF was THIS about?....
"are you suggesting that all of the networks "spin" with the exception of Fox?"
"Incoherency" indeed. Know thyself.
You can keep playing The MOG to your hearts content Jer. My post clearly stated that FOX HAS LOTS OF SPIN but that it comes from both sides (hence the deployment of the word 'bidirectional'). For you to then come back at me with "are you suggesting Fox doesn't spin" is just lame, ridiculous and childish. Whether intentional or not, it's MOG 101 and Dis Homey Don't Play Dat.
Still waiting for an explanation of how you get "Fox doesn't spin" out of my post which clearly said the opposite... either that or an apology. But I'm betting you'll just keep shuckin' and jivin'.... MOG 102.
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 6:55pm.
And let you know that Jer is actually a well liked (for the most part) lefty around here. Trashing him will not win you friends. Many of us like going back and forth with him, it get's both sides out in the open. Yes, he is left of center but he is smart and has a really good sense of humor. Search for the back and forth with him and MD, seems nasty but they appreciate each other and have a good time bonking each other over the head.
What I'm trying to say is... many of us like Jer and like going back and forth with him, that's what this site does. Don't be all nasty with Jer and he won't be all nasty back, I promise, I know him. Chill out a little and you will find lot's of fun sparing with him, just ask Matthew Dean, he will back me up on this.
Jer is not a troll or a rabid lefty, he just likes to kick ya in the nads sometimes, then say both sides do it. He's really a good guy (even if his leftyness pisses off some here).
Go and search for his exchanges with MD, they are epic, but at the end of the day they like and appreciate each other... ask them, they will back me up.
Jer is a good (but wrong about everything) guy. K?
Or not, your choice...
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 7:55pm.
Submitted by FearMonger on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 8:40pm.
I've read enough over the past coupla years to understand what you are saying and I appreciate your post. What I cannot abide is someone... anyone (moonbat or RWE) intentionally misrepresenting what is written under the banner of "not to put words in your mouth".
Go back and read my post and tell me that it's not obvious that I was actually agreeing with Jer... that Fox is chock-full-o-spin... and then tell me that this kind of BS ...
is A-OK with you. Heck, I even said "I've read enough of your posts to expect better of you than this" and went out of my way to make it perfectly clear. In thanks, he posted this...
"it appears to me you are arguing that even though there is "spin" at Fox, unlike the rest of the liberal water-carrying networks where the rotation is exclusively to the left, any rotation to the right at Fox is counterbalanced by an equal and opposite rotation to the left, thereby producing--you guessed it--perfect ideological equilibrium. Finally!...the nirvana for fair and balanced news and opinion dissemination."
Not cool Gary. Not even close to what I said. So... not only did he start out "'not' putting words" in my mouth (as he proceeded to do just that), he continued the "'not' word putting" with the above flourish including such gems as 'perfect' and 'nirvana'. Perhaps you are more tolerant of someone taking license with your words but... not me. Not never.
Seriously, do these statements sound like I'm saying "Fox doesn't spin"?
"The difference between Fox spin and TheRest spin is that only one is bidirectional."
""Spin" indeed. Lots of it on Fox. They wear it like a Badge Of Honor."
With his "Pope/Catholic" post Jer was (no doubt) basically saying "Fox is chock-full-o-spin". I actually agreed but made it clear that at least Fox has "bidirectional spin". Since then it's all strawmen. He wants me to "absolutely" declare a position that he's preconceived (which apparently is that "FoxNews engages in predominantly conservative spin") which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wrote. I said that Fox gives lots of face time to liberals... that's a far cry from saying Fox leans to the left. And anyway, what kind of FOOL would even assert such a thing?
So Jer has insulted my intelligence several times starting with that first response and escalating since. Meanwhile, he ignores the fact I've made my position perfectly clear several times (which was never ambiguous in the first place). Can you guess what it is Gary? Or shall I spell it out yet again?
Not really too concerned with 'making friends' but I do enjoy the spirited debates and I do appreciate what Jer brings to the table. That being said, I will not abide someone (anyone) playing The MOG with my posts.
Please respond. I'm interested to get your take on what was actually written.
P.S.... FWIW I wish I hadn't used the word 'dipstick'. Sorry Jer. The post it was in response to was pretty condescending but I have no excuse for name-calling. It won't happen again.
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 12:39am.
Nice rant, you could give Liberalies a run for his money. Second, did I bring FOX into it at all? Nice try but no, I didn't. I was only talking about Jer and your going off on him. I wasn't trying to talk down to you or be nasty of anything like that. Written words on a page (or blog) don't always convey their true meaning, heck, something may read bad but when spoken will be something totally different.
Look, I'm not one to start any shit unless you are a raving moonbat, which you obviously aren't, and neither is Jer. It's just your tone, if I read it right (write?... see above) seemed overly aggressive on nothing more than semantics and possibly not so well written ideas. Jer is on the left and he speaks (writes) from the left but he also berates the left when needed. I'm just saying take a hint from Matthew, spar spar spar, but have fun doing it. That's all. I've spoken with Jer before and he's a good guy, even if he's wrong most of the time, being a lefty that is. (Yes Jer, I'm poking you in the ribs, poke poke).
And yes, there are some here who really don't like Jer and jump on his ass just for daring to write something, anything. Kinda like LSU fans, not that there's anything wrong with that. (Yes, you know who you are and I'm poking at you too, poke poke, TD ALABAMA!)
And your posts weren't so obvious as to what you were trying to say, it' written, not said, so it may be taken not the way you wanted. FOX rocks, libs don't and Jer is OK with me. Peace.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 3:04am.
You rock too my good buddy.
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 3:09am.
Well, Vet..........as I heard the legendary Charlie Musselwhite say (as I was standing behind him on stage, playing rhythm guitar while he was blowing his ass off on about 25 different harps!!!), at a sweaty little club in Hanalei) - 'there ain't no bout a'doubt it'!!!!! And the Rukus can cause a rukus!!!!
Submitted by FearMonger on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 10:44am.
It seemed like intentional misrepresentation to me. I know my writing is oddballish but there's no way for a right minded person to interpret that post as 'Fox doesn't spin'. And even if they manage to make that leap, I clarified it in great detail in later posts and was met only with more obfuscation and strawmen.
Secondly, I don't even know what your 'nice try' is for. The whole thing was about Fox and my apparent inability to accurately convey my thoughts with the written word so... Fox was 'in it' whether you wrote the word or not. I guess such obscure concepts as "Bizarro Bob Beckel" (and how the left would not be able to stomach him) just leave too much room for interpretation.
Meanwhile, you've devoted many keystrokes to my edumacation but but but... nary a word about the ridiculous insult-disguised-as-a-question that kicked it all off...
You might say "That's not an insult" but i beg to differ. What kind of an idiot would ever say such a thing? Besides the fact that it's probably the biggest strawman I've ever seen, just the presence of Hannity alone makes it an indefensible position and nobody I know (especially ME!) would ever assert such a thing. It would be a patently stupid thing to say so... YES! When Jer put those words in my mouth I got agitated.... especially considering the fact that my post said just the opposite.
I know how to play nice but that doesn't include intentionally misrepresenting under the guise of 'not' intentionally misrepresenting. If I overreacted then that's on me... but I believe the case is pretty strong that i didn't overreact at all. My evidence is the fact that Jer continued barking up that same tree, tossed in plenty of snark and condescension and still... even to this moment.... has not acknowledged the truth in what I said in that very first post. Instead he wants me to 'absolutely state' some ridiculous position that only exists in his mind.
Truthfully, it stinks of FearMonger prejudice and bigotry... but that's a subject for another time.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 2:27pm.
Yup classic Jer.
My evidence is the fact that Jer continued barking up that same tree, tossed in plenty of snark and condescension and still... even to this moment.... has not acknowledged the truth in what I said in that very first post. Instead he wants me to 'absolutely state' some ridiculous position that only exists in his mind.
I have referred to that tactic as getting, Jer'ed
Good job in defining his style, and not getting sucked into his argument on his terms.
You Didn't Build That.
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 12/05/2011 - 4:37pm.
Another NB'r also said his style was akin to "Straining at gnats while swallowing elephants".
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 12:34am.
I doubt the phrase "bite me, Jer" ever surfaced in his law tomes or legal dealings.
He gets a bit befuddled and cranky when reminded that at this particular site and on these threads, his word is not only NOT law, but is often subject to ridicule.
Luckily, for him, I do so free of charge. :o)
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 1:22am.
I regret that what I believe may have been nothing more than a relatively minor and mutual misunderstanding somehow exploded into a war of recriminations between us.
In my view, all news and opinion media--magazines, newspapers, talk radio, cable and non-cable TV--engage in "spin" to some degree. Both liberal and conservative commentators, columnists, analysts, contributors and editors absorb information and dispense opinion which has passed through myriad intellectual, cultural and emotional filters, some of which are consciously and sharply ideological while others are subtle and even superficially neutral, but very rarely are entirely free of bias.
So, when I referred to Fox News "spin", I thought it would be automatically assumed to mean a conservative tilt. I am well aware there are liberal spinners at Fox as well as conservative spinners, but, in my opinion [and I believe it to be the consensus] the network--taken as a whole--leans to the right. It's not a phenomenon which I lament or begrudge in the least (other than its irreconcilability with Fox's "fair and balanced" slogan) since heaven knows there is more than an ample supply of liberal bias in the media.
Whether it was a lack of clarity in your responses or my failures in reading comprehension or a combination of the two, the fact remains that I was having difficulty in determining your essential point. True, you acknowledged spin at Fox, but then supported that acknowledgement by citing a liberal spinner and arguing the spin was "bi-directional" in contrast to the REST of the media which spun in one direction only, i.e. to the left. As such, my inference--that you were contending Fox either (in effect) didn't spin or that it spun equally left and right--seemed to me to be entirely reasonable, while, to you, my inference appeared to ignore your very explicit prior statements. In any event, emotion began to overwhelm rationality and to the extent I contributed to that development I am sincerely sorry.
Submitted by FearMonger on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 12:07pm.
Perhaps our disconnect lies in the fact that apparently I see 'spin' differently than you. You seem to be of the opinion that copious (R) spin countered with equal amounts of (L) spin = neutrality. I don't see it that way at all.... I see it as Copious Spin x 2 (hence the phrase "chock-full-o-spin"). KnowhudImean?
"Leaning (R)" vs "Leaning (L)" is a different matter entirely. And while I'm thinking about it I want to address my statement about Joe S cuz it's a moot point whether you or I or anyone (including himself for that matter) actually believe he is a conservative. The fact is that nobody could IMO make the case that Morning Joe is a platform for conservatism... in fact I'd say the opposite is true.
And in that vein I'm reminded of Tuckers' old show which I often watched and always considered to be a platform for liberals disguised as "A Conservative Talk Show". Rachel Maddow and Co sucked the air out of that set on a daily basis.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 2:33pm.
You seem to be of the opinion that copious (R) spin countered with equal amounts of (L) spin = neutrality
In a sense, yes. I would amplify the equation as follows: "Copious (R) spin countered with equal amounts of (L) spin = balance. The end result of true balance is no perceptible ideological tilt when programming is assessed in toto. And no perceptible ideological tilt = network neutrality.
And while I'm thinking about it I want to address my statement about Joe S cuz it's a moot point whether you or I or anyone (including himself for that matter) actually believe he is a conservative. The fact is that nobody could IMO make the case that Morning Joe is a platform for conservatism... in fact I'd say the opposite is true.
Maybe some have made that case, but, if so, I'm not aware of it. I know I haven't. My claims have consistently been that from a policy standpoint, I haven't seen any evidence Scarborough has abandoned his conservative principles. And, furthermore, the notion that he never criticizes Obama is sheer nonsense.
Submitted by FearMonger on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:00pm.
"the notion that he never criticizes Obama is sheer nonsense."
Maybe some have made that case, but, if so, I'm not aware of it. ;o)
Submitted by FearMonger on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 12:30pm.
and again for the sake of clarity... I was not trying to insinuate that Fox has equal amounts of (R) and (L) spin. I would no sooner assert that than I would contend that "the Pope isn't Catholic".
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 2:34pm.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:37am.
better recheck that Jeringo ---
Sounds like you read one of your own posts by mistake.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:03am.
especially where you recently referred to me as a "dunce" "idiotic" and "stupid". See if you can find where I have said anything similarly condescending about you.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 4:04am.
you are most definitely a champeen at condescension, and if you choose to deny the fact that you were ever vitriolic in your choice of words aimed at me, then I shall add liar to the list.
As far as dunce - idiotic - and stupid - if the shoe fits, slip it on.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 6:02pm.
of condescension toward you similar to the cheap personal shots which I referenced. You have failed to do so.
Generally the "vitriol" which has been employed by you and I both has been part of exchanging barbs, most of which I intended, as I thought you likewise intended, to be of the good-natured variety (although when you start playing the 'dunce' and 'idiot' card, the friendly banter rationale is difficult to sustain.) And I think you'll surely concede that the overwhelming majority of those exchanges regardless of their nature have been initiated by you. If you choose to deny that fact, then you will have exposed yourself as a liar.
That said, you are obviously not stupid nor are you a dunce, and I would never brand you as such.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 7:32pm.
imply or deny that you ever said "such and such" unless the 'accuser' furnishes examples.
You do that continually - irrespective of the fact that all who read these threads see what you have to say and how you say it.
Of course we trade barbs - we have been engaged in doing so for over two years - and yes, I generally initiate the exchanges because I refuse to let some of your more obviously left slanted bullshit - which is strictly nothing more than your opinion as a left leaning Democrat - slide by without comment.
I have no reason to deny, either, that I enjoy watching you get all pissy with other posters when they ring your bell; but what amazes me no end is how you continually play the victim card after getting hammered as a result of bringing your liberal & Democrat Party BS onto a conservative site.
Of course I don't consider you a real life dunce, and you most obviously are not stupid.
That said, when you commit such a folly as everlastingly and sneeringly sniping at me with the "you have never provided links to sources", and THEN, provide the most hilarious comment - see my tag line - refuting the validity of your very own charges, the "stupidity" quotient a la Ol' Jer went into orbit.
What, you expect to get a pass? Not likely, as that is what 'barbs' are all about. Do something stupid again, and I will react accordingly.
Lucky for you, what goes up must come down.
What a catchy phrase - that would be a perfect tag line for me to use if I ever tire of the current one. Not likely that will happen, of course, because it gives me a chuckle every time I post.
Sweeeeet !! I owe all those chuckles to you, Jeringo. Many thanks.
I notice you once again slide effortlessly through a reply post exchange with your patented "they do it to" mantra.
You still got it, Jer.
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 8:09pm.
Check your keyboard. It looks like your "s" and "h" keys malfunctioned mid sentence.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 9:58pm.
the computer keys are sticky from spitting Mountain Dew Code Red all over them when I read ol' Jer's intimation that he never posted in a condescending manner towards me. :o)
I do believe he actually believes that to be true.
Jer be funny guy.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:03pm.
That was an AP piece.
Panetta Scolds Israel on Peace Talks
Published December 03, 2011 | Associated Press
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:08pm.
please refer to my closing comment in my reply to the Vet below.
Do you have a link? I didn't see it at the AP website.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:15pm.
That was TnT's link. And When I commented on this, I hadn't yet seen your comment to Vet. I replied to that though, twice. The Edit includes a CNN link. I think it's fair to say that Panetta, in a speech at the Brookings Institute, placed the impetus for peace talk resumption squarely on the shoulders of Israel.
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:19pm.
I read the entire thing and an objective assessment would conclude the Mr. Panetta did not "blame" Israel for the whole of the problems in the middle east.
However such an objective assessment would also have to conclude that Mr. Panetta believes that Israel should shoulder to responsibility for outreach to its neighbors with regards to the peace process. The laundry list of things that Israel "should" be doing to secure peace with its neighbors spells this out quite concisely .
It would also conclude that he did in fact blame Israel for failing to archive a viable two state peace with Palestine, as he characterized the activities that that Israel has been engaged in as "undermining the Palestinian Authority" and stated definitively that "Now is the time for Israel to take bold action and to move towards a negotiated two-state solution" once again putting the entire onus of initiating negotiations to achieve said solution squarely on the shoulders of Israel.
Simply stating the Mr. Panetta didn't blame Israel for the whole of the Middle East's problems is as both inconcise and overly simplistic as stating that he did so.
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:33pm.
Jer, I did read Panetta's speech. He calls on Israel to bend over backwards -- repeatedly. No where does he tell us what the Egyptians, Palestinians, Turks, etc must do. It's all on Israel. In fact, he goes to significant lengths to praise these other countries without rebuking them at all. And he does it in a very misleading way. Take Egypt, for example. Panetta says "Egypt’s current leaders, along with Jordan, have made very clear to me privately and publicly that they are committed to their peace treaties with Israel." What a bunch of watered-down nonsense. The muslim brotherhood won the elections there this week. And it would serve you well to re-read my post on what the so-called brotherhood said about Israel this week -- you know, that little thing about killing all the Jews?
Panetta also said "Rather than undermining the Palestinian Authority, it is in Israel’s interest to strengthen it by contributing and continuing to transfer Palestinian tax revenues and pursuing other avenues of cooperation." And that's it! Nothing about what the Palestinian Authority must do. Nope -- because then Panetta wouldn't be bashing or scolding Israel. I could say this about the o'bama administration: "Rather than undermining Israel, it is in the US interest to strengthen it by standing behind Israel and recognizing the danger she is in because of the constant o'bama bashing".
Stop apologizing for this administration, Jer, and get real.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:34pm.
Break the ice. Just one example. Pull something from Fox News. Juxtapose it to what was said. Just one tiny example.
I will start. Turkey
Fox: Panetta urged Israel on Friday to "reach out and mend fences" with Turkey, Egypt and other security partners in the Middle East, saying he is troubled by the Jewish state's growing isolation in the volatile region.
Transcript: For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability – countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan. This is an important time to be able to develop and restore those key relationships in this crucial area. This is not impossible. If gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. That is exactly why Israel should pursue them.
Fox: For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability -- countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan," he said. "This is not impossible. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. And that is exactly why Israel should pursue them."
Fox: Panetta, who made his first visit to Israel as Pentagon chief in October, said it is in the interests of Israel as well as Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, to reconcile. He said he would take that message to Ankara when he visits there in two weeks.
Transcript: Like all of you, I’ve been deeply troubled by the direction of the Turkish-Israeli relationship. Turkey is a key NATO ally and has proven to be a real partner in our effort to support democratic change and stand against authoritarian regimes that use violence against their own people. It is in Israel’s interest, Turkey’s interest, and U.S. interest, for Israel to reconcile with Turkey. And both Turkey and Israel need to do more to put their relationship back on the right track. That’s a message I’ve taken to Jerusalem, and it’s a message I’ll be taking to Ankara later this month.
The Vet's pronouncement on the issue of Turkey, Panetta, Pinatas, and Pinochle. Just kidding. The Vet's pronouncement on the spin of Fox News when it comes to Turkey and Israel - NO SPIN.
Your turn Uncle Jer - Time to find some spin for us. Or tell me how mistaken I was in my pronouncement of Turkey and Israel and Panetta's speech and the spinniness of Fox News.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:45pm.
which I believe was excerpted from this one which appears at the AP website and is entitled "Panetta Laments Growing Israeli Isolation", a somewhat more benign headline than "Panetta Scolds Israel on Peace Talks".
Also, the Fox article prominently features the "Just get to the damned table" edict in the second paragraph without mentioning it was part of the Q & A session following Panetta's prepared remarks--in contrast to the AP report which noted it only in the closing paragraphs and correctly identified the point at which Panetta made the comment. [Neither report mentions that Panetta was clearly referring to both the Israelis and the Palestinians in his "get to the damned table" exhortation. Nor is there any significant reference in either article to Panetta's very strong reaffirmation of the US/Israeli relationship and our continuing commitment to that nation's security interests.]
Now, if there is another AP article identical to the Fox piece in every respect, I would say any "spin" would have been AP's and not Fox's.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:09pm.
I didn't scroll down far enough (ref: my comment above). Fox isn't going to re-write the AP piece, but if you're complaining about the headline, try reading Yahoo News one time; they spin headlines with the best of them.
Jer:"Also, the Fox article prominently features the "Just get to the damned table" edict in the second paragraph without mentioning it was part of the Q & A session following Panetta's prepared remarks..."
CNN puts that in their first paragraph.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:25pm.
MR. POLLACK: And this will have to be your last question. Mr. Secretary, you made a strong statement about Israel’s responsibility towards peace. What steps should it take now? Withdraw the Israeli army from the Palestinian territories? It’s a suggestion and a question. It’s a suggestion in the form of a question.
SEC. PANETTA: Just get to the damn table. Just get to the table. (Applause.) The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences – you know, we all know what the pieces are here for a potential agreement. We’ve talked it out, worked through, we understand the concerns, we understand the concerns of Israel, understand the concerns of the Palestinians. If they sit at a table and work through those concerns, and the United States can be of assistance in that process, then I think you have the beginning of what could be a process that would lead to a peace agreement.
But if they aren’t there – if they aren’t at the table, this will never happen. So first and foremost, get to the damn table. (Applause.)
[My emphasis in bold and italics]
At least that's the way I interpreted Panetta's words--a call for both sides to get to the table.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:36pm.
Nice try. Maybe you should alert CNN.
Of course you left this part out:
"If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are -- and Israel's moral standing will grow even higher. And that is why Israel should pursue them," Panetta said.
"If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are -- and Israel's moral standing will grow even higher. And that is why Israel should pursue them," Panetta said.
I'm guessing he was specifically talking about Israel there, since he said Israel -twice.
He was scolding Israel. Why? Because trying to convince the Palestinians to do anything short of eradicating the Jews is pointless. Pannetta knows this. So, he's desparately trying to win a political talking point for Obama prior to the election. If he can convince Bibi to come to the table, it'll be seen as a foreign policy win for the Obama administration. He also knows that no solution would happen before November, so even when it inevitably fails, it'll be long after the election. And he was at the Brookings Institute. It's just politics.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 6:00pm.
answer. Now please link the part of the answer which you claim I "of course" left out.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 6:34pm.
It's in the CNN piece. Sheesh. Maybe read through the whole article before cherry-picking the part you think might support your terribly-weak argument? I even tried to give you an out on this by saying it's just politics. Sometimes it's just better to admit you're wrong then to continue the spin, Mr. Weiner.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 6:46pm.
of cherry-picking excerpts from a website analysis of the speech.
As far as admitting I'm wrong, I had already absolved foxnews.com of any blame for spin as I had originally charged. I thought you noticed that.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 7:32pm.
is just that, a quote; at least according to CNN which placed quotation marks around the sentence and attributed it to Pannetta. Regardless of his prepared speech, his direct answer to an audience question is what the hub-bub is all about. In it, he clearly indicated that peace in the middle east rests on the intransigent Israel to be the first at the peace table. That's not spin, that's his position, and by proxy, that of the administration. And it's not like its new; Obama has repeatedly placed requirements upon Israel from halting all home construction to giving back land. I've yet to hear what he's required of the nasty little Palestinians. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:52pm.
Boy if would only understand the concerns - NOT SCOLDING - Boy if only Israel would be part of "they". Boy if Israel would only understand the concerns of Palistinians - NOT SCOLDING AT ALL.
Do you seriously hear yourself at times? What is Israel to understand?
Israel - you better start understanding concerns! Right now!
According to the Israel Security Agency reports, in 2011 (until 31 July), Palestinian organizations fired 173 rockets and 192 mortar shells from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel, compared with 146 rockets and 211 mortar shells that were fired in all of 2010. For multi-year details (Data source: ISA website):
Year Rockets Mortar Shells
2011 173 192
2010 146 211
2009 566 287
2008 2,048 1,672
2007 1,276 1,531
2006 1,722 55
2005 401 858
Damn you Israel! Stop hiding under the table from the daily rocket attacks and step up to the table.
Wait. My bad. I am spinning. Surely Mr. Pannetta told the Palestinians to stop the daily rocket attacks before they stepped up to the table.
Uncle Jer takes a big ol' crap on my lawn every single day. I finally figured it out. I just don't understand his concerns. Maybe if I did, he would stop crapping on my lawn every single day.
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:52pm.
Obama has been consistent in his contemptuous treatment of Israel. His words and deeds, or lack of deeds, motivate the Arabs to action against Israel as well as revolutions to establish Islamic governments in the region. Obama's actions and words on the Middle East are NOT in the interest of peace or American interests.
The administration's current (and continuing) stance on Israel reflects two core principles, one of Obama's and one of Left politicians:
On the bright side, at least Moochelle can be proud of America for the second time in her adult life.
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 8:49pm.
Let there be no doubt Obama and his administration are pointedly and concertedly attacking Israel publically.
Obama's handpicked self-hating Jewish attorney ambassador to Belgium tells the European Jewish Union it's Israel's fault that Mooslums hate Israel. As with Panetta's speech, there was no reason for this ambassador to Belgium to admonish Israel in that setting unless you are a two-faced weasel named Obama.
Except when Obama wants votes or money, President of 57 States takes every opportunity to criticize Israel, whether with his own words or through a puppet proxy.
Voting Democrat is a near-assured vote against America and her interests, Israel, and world peace.
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 6:51pm.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has joined the chorus of Obama proxies in criticizing Israel.
Attending the same conference where the self-hating Jewish US Ambassador to Belgium and Defense Secretary Leon Panneta have already criticized Israel, Clinton criticized Israel during a private meeting, after which the criticisms were made public.
I am shocked... NOT.
I seriously doubt it was Israel who leaked the criticism. They have nothing to gain from them at this time. Jew-hating, or at least anti-Israel, types have the most to gain from the leak. That puts the Obama Administration in the list of top suspects. We already know the politics of destruction used by the Clintons and Obama. Even with Hillary's history of loose lips as SoS, I get the impression that she was ordered by Obama to criticize Israel, particularly given that two others did so before her.
The coordination and consistent criticisms of the Obama Administration are undeniable. Unlike so many other promises he's made and broken, Obama keeps his promise to Mooslums and sides with them again. All involved are disgraces to America and her ally Israel. November 2012 can not come soon enough.
Jimmy Carter must be beside himself to not yet being tapped by the Media Left to further criticize Israel too. He is, afterall, the go to White Christian ex-President guy for slamming Israel.
Submitted by FearMonger on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 10:02pm.
Has anyone asked the members of The Good Reverend Wright's congregation just how many times they saw The One in the pews? 20 years and he missed all the good sermons? Really?
Sarah Palin's e-mails and Newt's Greatest Hits are Top Shelf but but but.... the most powerful man in the world is beyond reproach?
How great it must be to wear the immunity necklace of the "D".
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:38pm.
Nobody remembers The Won at Occidental nor Harvard, why on earth would they remember him in the pew?
Obama has just ghosted his way through life up until he was in the Senate....no fingerprints whatsoever.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:38pm.
I've been predicting for some time now that Obama would "go Christian" again, probably in the form of publicly attending Church in DC, as he geared up for the 2012 election.
It seems he has started.....
Via Keith Koffler's White House Dossier:
President Obama junked secular humanism Thursday and offered up by far the most overtly religious Christmas Tree Lighting remarks of his presidency, mentioning God and Christ for the first time during the annual ceremony and stressing Christian rather than “universal” themes.
He mentions God and Christ four times....speaks of "my Christian faith" and "keeping Christ's words not only in our thoughts, but in our deeds....."
Koffler has comparisons to the past two proclamations....read the whole thing....
The pandering commences.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:53pm.
It may all be a spectacular deception, but the fact remains Obama has repeatedly invoked his Christian faith during the 2008 campaign and throughout his presidency.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:01pm.
Sundays are for golf, all faithful Christians know that.
Next thing, you'll be trying to convince us that Scarborough is a staunch Republican.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:56pm.
Christian, are you? Please tell me his not attending church while president didn't disqualify him from being in the ranks of the believers and the saved.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 8:26pm.
it completely slipped my mind that Reagan had two little kids when he was in the White House. He set a bad example.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 10:36pm.
but the millions of little ones across the land who were probably turned into atheists by virtue of their President's failure to attend worship services. They were America's kids.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:45pm.
Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, in recognition of the contributions and influence of the Bible on our Republic and our people, do hereby proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible in the United States. I encourage all citizens, each in his or her own way, to reexamine and rediscover its priceless and timeless message.
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:19pm.
Lets not forget:
1988 Ronald Reagan signs into law the designation of the first Thursday in May as the annual observance for the National Day of Prayer – President Reagan signs Public Law 100-307 January 25, 1988, in the Second Session of the One Hundredth Congress (Public Law 100-307—May 5, 1988).
Lets also not forget, that Obama chooses to ignore this day, because his constituency are for the most part are the atheist and other America haters
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:35am.
Not attending? BS, he did attend church occasionally. Reagan being smarter then the typical leftist, wasnt about to give them an excuse to promote their bigotry upon him.
I find it amusing that libs love to make claims of absolutions, even when they dont know what they are talking about. Reagan was a staunch defended of Religious Rights. For leftist to pretend he wasnt by making claims that appear to contradict this fundamental truth, is just another example of their propensity of trying to change history.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 6:35pm.
[or whoever is composing this post for you.]
I've never claimed Regan wasn't religious, or that his faith in God wasn't a significant part of his life. The ONLY issue is his church attendance while he was president, and there is ample authority confirming that he rarely attended church services during his two terms in office.
Please don't change the question to a matter about which I have no disagreement. I'm afraid the points you thought you scored must be taken off the board.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 7:41pm.
you changed your story about Reagan, from "not attending church", to '"rarely attending church".
You lose, Jeringo.
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 8:04pm.
The idea that the "Gipper" didnt go to church is the equivalent of Obama not going to church or even being a practicing Christian. Is as laughable as I dont compose my own post.
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:05pm.
It's total deception, Jer, and not particularly 'spectacular' either................I say Barry's 'Christian faith' is as phony as just about anything else that he purports to think, believe, or be..............same goes for his big-boot wife Mooooooooooooooooochelle. We saw where he cut his choppers while becoming a so-called 'Christian'............at the feet of an angry, racist, anti-American, more-white-than-black communist ex-moooooooooooooooooooslem, who had his own interpretation of Christianity - tailored to suit his own agenda. But at least Jeremiah Wrght was, and still is, a helluva lot more 'honest' than Boy Barry could ever be.
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:10pm.
Most people would call that being dishonest, but ol' Jeringo evidently can't see that.
Or chooses to ignore it.
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:27pm.
Ahhhhhhh, c'mon MD - you KNOW that 'deception' is not nearly as bad as 'dishonesty'!!! It's kind of like the difference between a 'bald-faced lie' and a 'little white lie'..................although that's probably a 'racist' statement, and Boy Barry would NEVER want to be accused of tellling a 'white' lie in any way, shape, or form!!! Those are for the honkies and the crackers, yo....................
Plus, as much of a queebie-assed wimp that Boy Barry is, I have to give him credit for having some onions when he does tell lies (which is most of the time) - he isn't afraid to lay out the biggest bald-faced lies imaginable...........I think the guy is actually better than Clinton, because der Schlickmeister KNEW he was lying, whereas Boy Barry actually BELIEVES them!!!
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:42pm.
take a polygraph and pass it with ease. In his mind, he's not lying. So, according to him, he tells no lies. Everything that emanates from his pie-hole is the truth, because he believes it to be the truth.
If he told everyone that the sun would rise in the West tomorrow, he'd be up before sunrise, waiting to see it rise in the West. That's why you live in Asia now, he firmly believes that anything west of the Golden Gate is in Asia.
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:55pm.
And that IS true, buddy-boy...............you know I've been saying all along that Boy Barry IS a lie - his whole pathetic life has been a lie - and so that is his 'reality'..................at least Slick got that twinkle in his eyes when he was laying out a 'whopper', and the MSM would marvel at how good he was!!! Boy Barry get's that 'possessed' look in his angry eyes when he is questioned or confronted about actual 'truth' - because it doesn't register in his delusional addled peabrain.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:55pm.
I think old Jer is sampling the Jack this afternoon. He's all over EVERYTHING!
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:04pm.
alas, nothing stronger than apple juice.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:32pm.
Choose from these links page after page, after page.
Oh wait, here's a link for you to use...
Yea ' invoked his Christian faith' (with a small 'f'').... all rightee then...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 10:45pm.
Hmmm...page after page after page...and every single one referencing the same gaffe.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 10:55pm.
At least this gives you both sides.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 2:45pm.
At a time when President Obama claims that he has done more for Israel than any other American president, David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine begs to differ.
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:44pm.
Horowitz is to garlic as the Left is to vampires: Extreme revulsion from the Left.
Horowitz is a tremendous spokesman against the Left. Once one of them, the ex-radical now Conservative Horowitz knows every trick and nuance of the Left and they despise him for his unfailing exposure of their deceit.
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:38pm.
I'm going to Oahu next weekend to spend a few days with BOTH of my sons AND my grandson together at the same time. The only other time I've been with all 3 of them at the same time was at my fathers funeral up at Punchbowl Military Cemetary about 5 years ago, and my little boy was only a 6-month-old baby. And he didn't flinch when the Color Guard gave my father a 17-gun salute - which was quite admirable!!! These days he's a little man and can hold a conversation with anyone, and loves to be doing the same thing as everybody else - so it will be a lot of fun..........and he'll want to know all about his Uncle's Coast Guard ship - he wanted to know where they ate, where they slept, and where they went 'doo-doo'!!!
But I guess Boy Barry, Mooooooooooooooochelle, the girls, and the whole damn circus are going to be on island - and they always stay very close to where my son lives - in a tight little beach town on the windward side. And guess what, folks??? They create a scene, a traffic jam, mayhem, detours, inconveniences, and everything else when they are here...........and for us to drive down to the beach, we have to go right through where the Royal Family is staying - and that is always a crap shoot, depending on THEIR schedule.....................so I guess we'll just have to either make some other plans, or work around it. We wouldn't want to impose on our Dear Leader's vacation time, would we???
My lib brother is actually the head pro at a military golf course over there, but it isn't near where Barry goes golfing - so I don't think he's ever played there. I'm sure if he did - my brother would have a dream fulfilled!!!!
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:54pm.
Barry and Mooch will deign to travel there a few times, so he can "work out" and she can "show support" for the military families.
By doing their best, they'll close down the gym for any Marines and sailors who want to work out, and they'll seriously screw up everything at the DFAC and everywhere else on base. Last time he was there, my son was still stationed there, and the whole place was messed up from sunrise to sunset. Of course, he was gone prior to 1700, so he wouldn't have to display his ignorance of proper flag etiquette. And Mooochelle won't have to say "all this for a flag"?
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:00pm.
Yeah...........unfortunatly, my son lives on Kaneohe Bay Drive - and one of the routes to the beach goes right by the main gate of the base. And even taking another route still puts us going right past where the Royal Family stays. Last year I was there also, and it was mayhem - and that is a tight little town, with narrow streets and minimal parking.
Ha - I'm sure that Barry is out of there before the lowering of the flag!!! But you KNOW that Moooooooooooooooochelle wouldn't be making that statement if they REALLY got their wish and had the 'Obama flag' as a symbol of our country!!! That would make her ever MORE 'proud'!!!!
OK.............I'm going to check out the surf. It's been big and a little messy, but maybe today is has straightened up a little bit. I get real antsy when I have to stay around the house all day - I need action!!!!!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:00pm.
This is the one and only time I will pity you for living in paradise. Hey, even Eden had it's snake, now you'll have yours.
Sigh. Some places should simply be Obama free zones.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:19pm.
I was there in the 80's with mom dad and bro. Flew over from Maui $14.95 one way air fare.fair!!, Ahh the dazes of cheep oil, and 3 inter-island air lines..
Say while you are up there in Punchbowl look up Stanley Dunham I hear he occupies 1/2 of a double graves' plot.... where is Madelyn Dunham?
Oh yea don't remind me....
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 6:53pm.
You know, I wonder, who approves of the expenditures of these damned vacations? I thought there was some sort of cap or checks and balances for going all out but these (I use this term loosely) people have been living on the hog and I intentionally use that phrase because he's a muslim and they find pork offensive, so hog off!
But now a 17 day vacation, for crying out loud??? After all these other vacations? I want my damn money back and I want them to pay for these things! Again, who the hell approves of these things, where does the money come from? There's got to be a credit line or something to stop because of all this crap.
F*ing dictator! God almighty, this is just sickening and every where they go, life gets disrupted and for the worse, people trying to do business and live every day life lose money and valuable time because of this RFBPOSSOB! They lose money because of him anyway!
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 10:21pm.
Well, Jon-E-Boy, I think they DO have a 'check and balance' system - they write the checks, and if the checkbook doesn't balance, they just tax, borrow, or print more money to make it work....................and, seriously, do you think that the Government actually COULD balance their checkbook these days??? I don't think that has happened for a long long time!!! And the 'credit line' that you mention.............it's got more zeros on it (our new phrase - zeroes for Zero!!!) than you can count!!!
And, yeah........this will be the second time within a month that Boy Barry, and now the Royal Family, has come over here and caused untold hassles, delays, traffic jams, and inconveniences.............and they totally shut down part of the island, AND all of the work that was going on in that area, the other week when Boy Blunder came over here to Asia to meet with all of the other Asian economic leaders.
What I DON'T want to see while I'm over there is Mooooooooooooooooooochelle in a thong bikini!!!! (Although that thong may have to be made from a hammock!!!)
PS - the surf was pretty fun - about 5-6 feet, sunny, trade winds, not too crowded, clear warm water - a good change after a few days of crappy weather, poor winds, and big sloppy surf. I was in the water for almost 4 hours!!! And just think - ol' Cleventine is STILL sitting in front of his computer somewhere, hacking away and trying to fit in somehow!!!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 3:57pm.
… and the leftist thugs in the media get to chalk-up another victory for their ‘Ear Leader.’ It’s not just sad the media is so overtly partisan – it’s tragic.
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:03pm.
Yeah, grumps - you can be a white Democrat serial rapist and molester and sexual harrasser and become a two term President in our country............but if you're a black Republican conservative, with unsubstantiated or unproven allegations against you - you can't even RUN for office!!!!
You're right..........it is SICK!!! I hope Cain gets the chance to be some cabinet member - then he can just tell the MSM to f**k off.
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:33pm.
I think this just sucks, as I truly believe Herman had a real chance at beating the comrade Dear Ruler.
Once again, the left and its MSM dogwashers are going to be selecting the GOP candidate for us.
That is not good.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:35pm.
in this election. Any good candidate who can make a difference and bring us back will be destroyed by the left. What's the point?
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:51pm.
What little optimism I have left is now hanging by a very thin thread, as I think we're heading for a replay of 2008.
The Dear Ruler is sitting on a $1 billion reelection slush-fund, and he has 98% of the MSM working feverishly to help him.
I'm not even sure a resurrected Ronald Reagan could prevail against that, at least not with the ignorant, entitlement-minded electorate we have today.
This is why qualified conservatives shun politics - particularly at the national level.
But who can blame them for not wanting to put their famlilies through the ringer?
I certainly can't.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:59pm.
You mean entitlement-minded like this woman, http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessness/2011/12/01/homeless-lady-15-kids-...
Apologies if this was posted earlier.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:19pm.
Did anyone NOT see this coming?
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:33pm.
… I did not see it coming this soon. I thought he would hold-on until the South Carolina primary, and then make his decision.
I hope Mr. Cain asks his supporters to support either Newt, or Bachmann, or Santorum… maybe then we can salvage something from this despicable character assassination by the media.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 4:34pm.
have destroyed a GOP candidate for behavior that their candidates would be defended for. It convinces me that Cain was a president that could have made a difference.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:10pm.
“As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign,” Mr. Cain said...Irritating NYT link, that 99% review blather, same ol, same ol.. review.
An unapologetic and defiant Herman Cain
Hay that's how I like my presidents, duh!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 6:43pm.
And if Blonde and a couple of others (I think it was Upnorth and scuba) remember a while back when we discussed the different GOP candidates in a chat, I mentioned early on that I didn't see Cain getting it, that something might be off about him. Not that it really was, just that it "might be" as in suggested and sure enough, there's been plenty of allegations against him (there's your "might be") to have him give up.
I'm sorry that it happened this way. These are the kinds of styles of accusations that drove away Sarah Palin from being governor and she wisely left the office so as to take the pressure off everyone else. That's what Cain's doing in this case, taking the pressure off the family. I do hope they'll go after Steffie for that "his girlfriend" snark.
Now I'm afraid to guess who might be the next one, it might actually happen. :-(
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:07am.
i was there, Scoob was too, I believe.
As has been said in places, today. This reflects on Cain's staff, they could never get in front of this, even when they knew the first round was coming.
How hard would it have been to get someone out there to say,on day one of this whole kerfuffle, "we expected the accusations of harassment, it's the playbook of the left. No one will have any evidence of harassment, but they'll make the claim. Next, they'll drag out someone to say they had an affair with Mr. Cain". And point out that the first accuser lived in Axeldork's building.
As far as "going after Steffie", the rest of the candidates should shut down any and all access to ABC, Politico, NBC and it's minor league team, and the rest. Take your message to the people who don't want to ruin you.
Submitted by Martin2717 on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:12pm.
If Cain is a officially out, then I don't really care about this election anymore. If good honest people like Cain can't run for the most important job in all the land because of garbage like this, we no longer live in a free society. It's sad that America has come down to this. The people behind this are truly slime and lower than scum.
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 8:21pm.
then the msm can claim two victories. One over Cain. And one over you, to suppress your vote.
Submitted by Dan Diego on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:15pm.
"If Cain is a officially out, then I don't really care about this election anymore."
Give up? That's exactly what the "slime" and "scum" want you to do and you bow to them, sad.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 5:59pm.
in Military Police dogs. How's that budget proposal coming along?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:59pm.
I sent an e-mail to my "esteemed" senator, Red Karl Levin, asking how he planned to unscrew this screw up. Only my language wasn't that polite.
I wonder, was this another attempt by the social engineers to make our military equivalent to the goat lovers in Muslim-ville? Or is it playing to the anti-DADT crowd, even making military K-9's live in fear.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 8:40pm.
Seems there's going to be some grilling of the GOP Candidates tonight on Huckabee from 8pm-10pm eastern on Fox News.
Three of the state attorney generals who are on the lawsuit to overturn SoetoroCare are going to grill each candidate one on one about the (non)Constitutionality of the health care BS, as well as a bunch of other questions, there won't be any of this grandstanding or harping on the other candidates that we've seen before.
I had planned on watching movies till I heard about this, so I'm going to watch this instead, at least see how it will be. John Huntsman won't be there of course, and we already know what happened to Cain. If it doesn't hold my interest for too long, I'm flipping to bluray, but I've giving this a chance(usually don't watch huckabee).
It starts in 20 minutes from the time of this message.
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 7:34am.
I see where Boy BlahBlah is NOW 're-calibrating' his views and statements about the greatness of our country and it's 'exceptionalism'..............he now wants us to believe that he is the biggest supporter of this country that we'll ever meet. I guess nothing he's said (or written) over the past however many years really meant anything, and we're just supposed to forget about it - and take him at his new word. He even said that Asia 'looks up to us' for guidance, directions, and our core set of values - whatever the hell they are,in his world!!!
So I expect the see the MSM dutifully start to re-vamp Boy Barry's image on this topic and start touting him as the most patriotic person since...........one of our founding fathers - all of whom Boy Barry detests, given his past (and continuing) actions.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:18am.
Source: “The Grumpy Center for Advanced Studies (GCAS)”
Motto of the GCAS: “Foo-foo flavored liquors for goodness sakes! What’s next? Bird flavored drinks!! “I’ll have a Tequila Mockingbird, Thanks””
OVERVIEW: Since your humble Grumpy doesn’t have a working TV, I had to wait until the “forum” was replayed on the Net [therightscoop.com ] found here:
I mention this only because my report will not contain the normal rich tapestry of colors of the events ‘pre-game’ coverage.
THE MODERATOR: Gov. Mike Huckabee… set the standard for what a “Moderator” should be. He did not make the slightest attempt to interject his own views or preferences into the forum (a joke or two, but nothing egregious). He acted more like a welcoming and attentive host at a dinner party. He insured each participant got an equal amount of time to answer the questions…Just superb!
QUESTIONERS: Three State Attorney Generals made-up the panel of questioners, Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia, Pam Bondi of Florida and Scott Pruitt Pruitt if Oklahoma. They asked great questions to each of the candidates, and despite the severe handicap of being lawyers (not normal people at all), each managed to solicit specific answers from the competitors.
There is only a minor criticism to be made: The questions seemed to somewhat play to each of the candidates’ strengths (i.e.: Santorum “Family Values” – Perry “Securing the Boarder,” etc.). It should be noted that the candidates were asked to provide a sound “10th Amendment” argument for their ideas and the AG’s kept all “on-track.”
PARTICIPANT ANALYSIS: Each candidate got approximately 11 minutes of air-time and each was placed in the spotlight on an individual basis which made for a more focused presentation (no bickering, chastisements, etc.). There were no “winners or losers” (Except for Paul and Romney who are (IMO) the consummate losers – (Not that, mind you, I will allow any personal prejudice to sneak into the analysis when discussing these two shameful examples of honest and thoughtful stewardship)). So, here are the candidate specifics (listed in order of their appearance):
1. Newt Gingrich – Under proper questioning, Newt was allowed to clear-up some of the questions that have arisen as late about his immigration environmental, and educational viewpoints. Newt has a great command of the issues but if he has one weakness, it is that the average person has to pay very close attention to keep up with his train of thought and he doesn’t quite make it clear if he is actually proposing specific solutions or is just throwing-out a item that should be a subject for Socratic inquiry using a conservative starting point.
2. Rick Santorum – Well, Santorum finally got his moment in the sun. He was asked questions about the Patriot Act, Family values, States Rights (Health-Welfare- Education) and National issues such as overregulation by the EPA. His answers were smart and somewhat comprehensive, yet he keeps falling back on his record in the Senate – where he may have had a significant role, but the bottom line is: He was just one of 100 and (IMO) we don’t need another “Senator” to be President.
3. Rick Perry – Was excellent last night. His answers were clear, unambiguous, and straightforward and he was a great advocate for ‘States Rights’ and reigning in an out-of control judiciary. I really don’t know what else to say… he was just very good in this setting.
4. Michele Bachmann – Her “Lawyer persona” was on display last night and she did a very, VERY good job. She managed to explain the details of the problems we face in an understandable manner. She did get a little tripped-up when discussing the role of the federal government vs. States Rights with regard to the EPA… But, past the vagueness of that particular answer, her other answers to the questions were quite crisp. She was impressive.
5. Ron Paul – I now consider Ron Paul the “Inspector Clouseau” of the Republican Party, so here is a clip that perfectly describes his command of facts that lead to a logical conclusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KsVu11CSrQ
I’m sorry, the guy really is nuts… he calls 9-11 an “act of violence’ and “a crime” instead of labeling what it really was – an Act of Terrorism and War against the USA.
6. Mitt Romney – Some may say that I am being ‘unfair’ to Mitt by my continued criticism of his deeply disgusting, vain, and slithering presentations in these debates/forums… So, in an extraordinary effort to be fair to this weasel, let me just say he was once again impeccably groomed… As for his smooth yet insincere answers to the questions – I think we have found the replacement for the late pitchman Billy Mays.
Note: Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman did not participate. Cain for obvious reasons, and Huntsman because he probably didn’t like the idea of having to answer real questions.
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:28am.
Very well done! Take a new car out of petty cash.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:36am.
My problem is that I'll probably wind up with a Petty Car out of new cash!
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:51am.
Grumpy, spot on as usual.
I watched it along with a couple of other NB'rs in a chat room and we all felt that this format was the BEST one so far and that there should be more of them.
Of course I would love to see Gingrich in a debate with President Downgrade. I think Newt would be the best in that format as he would go for the jugular and not be a nice guy like McCain was. That being said, in my opinion the top 3 in order were Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann.
I also wonder how Odumbo would have done in this format against real lawyers asking the tough questions and not letting him weasel out.
Anyone who saw this and liked the format should send emails or tweets or whatever to Fox.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:05am.
Well done, you made some good points about all 6 of them, and you're right, the questions did seem to play to their strengths, but at least some of the more pertinent questions, they were repeated with pretty much all of them, like what would they get rid of, like EPA, etc. They were consistent in that regard I thought.(I only watched it the one time last night while on chat with Scuba and Cajun, we had a grand time with it as well)
What I was particularly paying attention to was their body language, which was what I mentioned about how revealing this panel was. Newt fidgeted a couple of times, and started waving his hands around for emphasis on a few things, you could tell he wasn't comfortable. But he did fairly well with some of the questions. He seemed to have some solutions, but it didn't seem strong enough. I got the impression he was just trying to make some debate points versus actually being some sort of leader and then later thought he was more of someone trying to make compromises with others.
Santorum was clearly nervous and tried to hide it, kinda seemed to ramble on a bit about some stuff.(check out how he started to sweat a little, his forehead got a little shiny as it looked like the sweat was coming through the makeup. Sure, the lights might be hot, but as it was noted at one time, they keep those studios REAL cool, which is why they can get away with wearing suits with hot lights on them) As scoob and caj and I noted, he referred to himself a lot as you noted of his record, and I got the impression he was trying to make himself out to be some sort of champion warrior or something, which is fine, but as you noted, we don't need another "senator" for potus. Never should have had the "present in name only" senator/bogus potus in the first place, but apparently the Americans were suckered.
Perry was a bit passionate, something noted by the AGs, and once he clarified what he was saying about the EO regarding health care, he shined very well in this venue, and if anyone not from Texas sees this, you might understand a bit better why some of us from Texas would like to see him as potus, a real one. But he didn't come across as uncomfortable at all either. The AGs described him as a tenth amendment purist, and having heard that term, I am happy to call myself that as well. One thing that stuck out, you could tell he's very much a leader.
Michele Bachmann. Ugh. I'm sure he's a nice lady, but she's definitely the politician. I thought she didn't offer a whole lot in the way of solutions, even though she understood the problems. That EPA thing you mentioned had me commenting like "no no no, that's not the way to do it" especially when she mentioned negotiations and whatnot when action is what's needed and it has to be using common sense too. Overall, real disappointing in my book, but I had already written her off as she's shot herself in the foot too many times already before this to the point that she's barely got a leg to stand on with various issues, especially when she brought up abortions. She was also too placid. I think she kinda contradicted herself on one of the questions too.
Ron Paul. Just Ron Paul. As I mentioned to Scoob and Caj last night, he did not disappoint, he did exactly what I expected. The answers he gave about 9/11 and acts of violence.....sorry, that don't wash at all. That's all I really want to say about him. Other than just quit already, you ain't getting anywhere!
Mitt Romney.....what the hell was that greeting at the beginning?? It was basically "Hi, I'm happy to be here!" And he kept looking at the camera most of the time, before looking back at the panelists a few times. Very disconcerting, very disingenuous. And he was very RINO too. As noted, he all over the place, again very RINO.
Overall opinion, Perry did the best. Newt, not too bad. The rest.....no thanks.
As for the AGs themselves, out of all three of them, I would not want to be on the receiving end of the Virginia AG's question, he was VERY good and good at staying on track. The others weren't so bad either.
I would LOVE to see these guys go up against the Dems with this format, they would be waffling so much, you'd run out of maple syrup!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:20am.
I never picked-up on the body language thing and your pointing it out makes a world of difference (re: the answers given by each).
Thanks again for your noteworthy observations.
BIG P.s.: Scuba, this post applies to your observations as well.
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:35am.
Thank you both.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:52pm.
That was, as usual, a great analysis of the debate last night. I agree with jon and scoob, this was the most interesting and revealing format of all of the debates so far. The AG's had no gotcha questions but did force each candidate to provide substantive answers instead of talking points for the media.
Jon and scoob have offered interesting views on their assessment as well. I will just add my own opinion. Petty cash withdrawal will be $.02.
Bachmann is very intelligent and capable. But she does not seem to be able to present her detailed views on subjects in short interviews. I think she is very capable but needs to find other venues to present her ideas.
Paul and Santorum are just plain weird.
Romney found several new and original ways to defend Romney Care and at the same time deny ObamaCare. It made me dizzy just listening. He did however show that he is a very staunch believer in states rights which for me, was a new look at Romney.
Perry did the best last night. He also showed, based on the type of questions, that he has the most knowledge and actual experience in dealing with these issues. Administrative and political experience is not enough, there must also be convictions and leadership qualities as well. Perry was impressive in this particular format.
Now, on to Newt. Watching him carefully since Cain and Palin are not running. ( clue folks). This guy answered questions others could only predict. He has the inside knowledge and experience of the legislative and administrative process that no one else has, including other members of congress and THE ONE. His answers, to some people, may have seemed a little wishy washy or an effort to go middle of the road. But I found that he gave good answers to the questions with a caveat for each one. To have an agenda, ideas, solutions is one thing, but must never forget that there are consequences for each solution and long term effects cannot be ignored. No more kicking the can down the road. That is what I heard from Newt last night and it was, at first, confusing but then on review, very reassuring
Now my negative assessment of Newt. He is a very experienced and bright fellow. But he has years of insider knowledge of the beltway. His actions got him burned by his own when his ego became more important than his job. I am concerned that this "ego" will return with power, he will seek revenge on his old "friends" and lose track of his priorities. Then again, he claims to have found his true self through the Catholic Church. Hopefully, then he will behave as a true Christian and a real American patriot and do the best for the country, not Newt. This guy, I will be watching very closely in the coming months.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:12pm.
Thank you. I find it hard to disagree with a single thing you said.
But allow me to make an additional observation about the "closing minute" each candidate got... Newt was by far the best in that he asked for the nations help to find and address solutions. That goes a long way in my book.
- Grump :o)
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:59pm.
I hate to toot my horn again as a Floridian, but I really like Pam Bondi. I think she's going to do great things. She's leading the charge in the OCare case that will be heard by the Supremes. The three we saw last night, just wow!
I'd be happy to have any of these three kick Holder to the curb during the next administration.
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:12pm.
Blonde, I am not familiar with the Oklahoma AG but I have seen Bondi and Cuccinelli on various news shows and think those two will go quite far.
They are intelligent and committed. We can only hope that they take down Obamacare.
Now imagine President Downgrade facing these three in the same sort of format like last night. He would be left a stammering mess without his teleprompter. :-)
I am rethinking Rick Perry after his performance last night but I think Gingrich is the one who would beat Odumbo to a pulp in a head to head debate.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:27pm.
... That Bondi is also quite a good looking babe as well as a smart & savvy AG???
If so, I deny ever making that remark!
Note: If ever I run for office (I'm thinking President of a Bowling League here) you may refer to my comment above as a sure sign of my being a "Serial Complementor.”
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:34pm.
I do not think it was inappropriate at all as I have had those same thoughts myself. :-)
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 2:43pm.
It's obvious....Pam Bondi is the Megyn of the conservative states' AGs. A winning combo of there ever was one. Star power, and sharp as a whip. Her future is quite bright.
Submitted by mom_rox on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 2:48pm.
that you even have to hesitate before complimenting someone?
Thanks to all of you, esp. Grumpy, for providing a great analysis which has motivated me to record the re-airing of the show. (Honestly, I'm "debate"-weary ... the candidates probably are as well). Jon, as a fellow Texan, I'm encouraged by your analysis of Perry - he remains in my top tier. I'm well aware that he can't debate and that he's not mensa material, but I have confidence in his ability to be a leader and to make the right decisions in the Oval Office.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 7:47pm.
Thank you all very much for the kind comments and the great discussion. I'm sorry, I had to leave for a few hours to build some Christmas decorations... Honest, I didn't just sneak-out to watch the football games... although I should have.
Talk to you all later.
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:09pm.
"new evidence suggests that Muslims tend to be more committed to their faith than other believers". But CNN never reports the true reason: "because rejection of muslim faith brings swift and brutal punishment, up to and including death".
I wonder why CNN can't report the simple truth, and instead feels the need to propaganize on behalf of this murderous "religion"?
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 1:22pm.
And here is a prime example of the true nature of Islam
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 5:03pm.
I was shocked at this article, in the UK Daily Mail.
Two punks killed Marcus Lutrell's dog (read his book, Lone Survivor). I hope these two rot in hell.
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 12/04/2011 - 5:48pm.
Sickening Blonde, just sickening. It must have taken everything Lutrell had not to shoot those scum bags when he had them in his sights.
Submitted by FearMonger on Tue, 12/06/2011 - 12:09pm.
"my inference--that you were contending Fox either (in effect) didn't spin or that it spun equally left and right--seemed to me to be entirely reasonable"
That's the pertinent sentiment IMO. What fool would ever make such a contention? It's a given that Fox leans right... it doesn't need to be 'unequivocally stated'. I absolutely saw that as you insinuating that I am an idiot (wouldn't I have to be?) and setting up a strawman to be blown over by a single huff-n-puff from you. Then you proceeded to set up even more strawmen which just confirmed to me that you were salivating at the prospect of some FearMonger trying to make the case that Fox does not tilt right.
Of course Fox tilts right. And of course TheRest of the cable news media tilts left. And I believe it is absolutely true that... if MSDNC gave conservative pundits as much face time as Fox gives liberal pundits... what few viewers they DO have would quickly evaporate. It is my opinion that the folks who faithfully watch MessNBC don't WANT to get both sides of the argument and, in fact, would not tolerate it (you can try to make the case that Joe S is a conservative if you wish but then I'd have to get my huff-n-puff on) ;-).
By that same token (and again IMO) the folks who watch Fox DO want both sides. That whole "We report, you decide" mantra is the real selling point of FoxNews and it's the reason I started watching that network in the first place. Now today the difference between them and TheRest is clearer than ever when you've got great journOlists like Snuffaluffagus completely ignoring any story that might cast The Current Prez in a bad light. Me personally, I refuse to blindly accept his offering of "The News". The same goes for the whole prime-time cast of MSNBC who would rather cut out their own tongues than face reality. Like I said, at least Fox gives you both sides... even on Hannity's show liberals get face time.
Then of course there's the fact that Fox doesn't cherry pick what IS and IS NOT 'news'. I have never seen an actual news story on another network that Fox ignored. The reverse happens on a daily basis.
So Jer, feel free to quote me. Of course Fox leans right. It's a given. It needs to be stated just as much as it needs to be stated that TheRest all lean left. All non-idiots already know this.
Media Research Center
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Editor at Large
P. J. Gladnick
Julia A. Seymour
Copyright © 2005-2014 NewsBusters.