Election 2012 Is Comming

Phil,Phil,Phil,
I am soooo disappointed in you ...we gotta get you to use the hyperlink feature... even an uneducated moron like me can figure that out...

now if I could just figure out how to read all that without pictures..

phospher wrote: There you go wood...Wouldn't want to make anyone copy and paste.

you take life wayyyy to seriously...do you ever laugh?

He needs to watch Al Sharpton...

phospher wrote: OverMyHead wrote: I am trying to find a study I heard about today. Out of UCLA. conslusion almost all newsmedia is left of center. Found a brief overview UCLA newsletter And the study itself study Speaking of which, How about CNBC handling the republican debate. Started out asking if the candidates would go back to Bushes "failed policies" ended with analysis by Al Sharpton. The media campain to re-elect Obama is in full swing. Not that you would ever tell both sides of the story but for anyone that is interested in how this article has been debunked or at least a different perspective you can check out the link below. The other side of the story

As ususal phil you go right to your biased liberal sources.I am always suspicious when someone uses the word fair. 9 times out of ten they are trying to get somehting they have not earned (money, credibility....). I looked into fair. This is from the "what is fair" page of their own website.

FAIR is a media watch organization offering constructive criticism in an effort to correct media imbalance. We advocate for media access on behalf of those constituencies in our society that do not have the wealth to purchase their own TV stations or daily newspapers. We scrutinize media practices that slight public interest, peace and minority viewpoints.

All of us who founded FAIR have media backgrounds. .... The villain we see is not a person or group, but a historical trend: the increasing concentration of the U.S. media in fewer and fewer corporate hands.

FAIR was launched in mid-1986 at a time when the major media were bending distinctly rightward. Big media businesses were being absorbed by even bigger ones, with dangerous implications for those viewpoints already underrepresented. Well-financed right-wing groups like the misnamed Accuracy In Media (AIM) were harassing journalists who uncovered unpleasant truths about poverty, inequality, government corruption or U.S. military and nuclear policy.

........

We are dismayed that leaders of public interest movements generally do not speak for themselves in the major media. A graphic example: the nuclear freeze campaign. Arguably the biggest grassroots movement of the decade, the freeze won virtually every time its proposal was on a ballot. Yet when the freeze was discussed on national TV or in national publications, the leaders of the movement -- many of whom were women -- rarely got to speak for themselves. Instead they were spoken for by politicians and former leaders of the military establishment.

FAIR seeks to break this pattern of exclusion by dialoguing with media programmers, reporters and editors. In a democratic society, news and responsible opinion should extend beyond the perspectives of government and corporate elites.


So we have a group founded by journalist (known to lean left but not wanting that known) who base their existance on countering the influence of the "right wing", the military and corporate America. They are funded by donations from those who would bennefit from a belief that the media is biased to the right. Lets follow the money and the power. I'll type slow Phil so you can keep up.

Who would fund this group? we have examples in the article, journalist who rely on being seen as non-biased, anti nuke groups, peace group, minority groups, All seem to be those with liberal agendas, confirmed by the use of the words Right wing in the article representing the problem the are here to solve. We can then likely add liberal political groups to the funders as they recieve the bennifits of media leaning furhter left.

If it is revealed that almost all media leans left, how does this affect this group? If they cannot counter the left bias the very premise that they used to justify their existance is gone, along with their credability. What happens to thier influence? Their funding? so amazingly enough they have studies that support their premis, and Phil, having his mind made up and not wanting to be confused by the facts, decides in his non biased and scientific mind not to consider the credability of the source, or even offer his own insites. Instead he posts a link to someone elses argument to debunk the study, end of issue. Nice.

Typical lib tactic, distort the truth, then keep repeating it so all the little mush for brains believe it. Here's another one.

Trumpka

eric lavine wrote: Will you guys at the minimum at least admit that buffet pays less taxes than his secretary? not a political answer, just a yes or a no

Eric, Have we seen his secratarys taxes published, or are we taking his word for it? Why is it that the rich are greedy evil cheats until they recommend a tax increase for themselves and then they become totally credible? Warren has to be pretty ruthless to have amassed what he has. He has an angle on this. Somehow it is to his benefit. I just wonder what the benefit is, or who he is in bed with.

Eric, I was referencing a lot of the thinking of the left in that post, I dont doubt that it started to sound a little cracked. Let me try again. If the Koch bros or the Walmart family issued a statement that they paid MORE taxes than whoever, your side would automatically disdcredit the argument and be out filing freedom of info act requests to disprove it. I am just asking why when Warren Buffet, who is cut friom the same mold, makes a statement you agree with, he has 100% credability.

btw, I dispise the Walmart family, and if any time there was a union needed, this would be a great place for a union....they are responsible for killing many a small business. a great example of corporate greed

eric lavine wrote: btw, I dispise the Walmart family, and if any time there was a union needed, this would be a great place for a union....they are responsible for killing many a small business. a great example of corporate greed

But what would you say about them if they came out for higher taxes on the rich?

Lets raise corporate amercia's taxs again. 35% is not enough.. Where other countries are in the single digits. They will sure hire then..

eric lavine wrote: better yet, we could get the Mexicant's to work there for $3.50 a day....problem solved...except Waldo would keep the same retail prices and keep price gouging. Dave, if everything we used in our daily lives was purchased inside these walls, the cost would be competitve, if not cheaper. I have no idea where they come up with that 2 grand figure, thats bull ***************, its throw away Chinese junk, for example, a Kitchen Aid blender is 189.00 bucks everywhere I look, you tell me where the savings are. and i refuse to purchase it from Waldoprofitstealers

History shows Walmart does not price gouge, they drive prices down and pass it on to the consumer. Their busines model is to price the competition out of the market by getting the lowest prices in the industry from their vendors, and having the lowest operating costs. They are very good at it.

As far as buying within our borders economists will tell you that the net effect is a lower standard of living for everyone, wages and demand would go up for U.S. products and workers but not enough to offset the price increases. Again in the end we would have less and struggle more. That is not helpful to me.

Well good point but depends on there captitol gains and entities they have which may have them pay the 35%. But as there are several oil companies claiming to be from switzerland where there taxs are 8.Weatherford, Trans Ocean, and Cameron have shagged but across into another country to get cheaper corporate tax rates. Need to lower our corporate tax, give them a reason too come back to America and put money into our goverment. We lost of money in 08, these and many others left when Obama rama came into office.

Lower our rates to what 7% to beat the swiss, 2% to beat bermuda.. aint gonna bring any money back under the current laws (yes regulation) unless you make the rate 0%. So that isnt exactly a path that gets these companies paying thier fair share of what it takes to keep the miliary, roads, fire, police, etc up and running. Disallow the various trickery that keeps the companies from paying the proper tax rate on profits.. then we can talk about what that rate needs to be to keep companies in america.

Right now we let them take advantage of being in america without a contribution while the small and medium size business dont have that luxury..

eric lavine wrote: Greg, didnt you listen.....I mean really listen that goes for u to Dave

Eric, First of all it was sickening to see him call a joint session for a campain speech. In the past they have been used for the state of the union and things like war declarations, not to announce a lame rehash of an unsuccesful stimulus. I listened to his speech from start to finish. All he did was propose more of the same spending that has done nothing or hurt the economy so far. He said pass this about fifty time, like he was trying to hypnotise all of us which kind of scared me. He again wants to hit up the job creators for money and give it to the teachers and construction unions. He spoke again of fairness, which always means someone getting something they did not earn. He wants to extend unemployment by another year(three years...really?) When does it just become welfare? This will again raise unemplyment insurance rates on working employees, slowing job growth. He kept saying this is paid for but as I see it we have a deficit of 1.4 trillion this year and he wants to spend another .45 trillion, so unless we cut 1.85 trillion from this years budget it is not paid for. We can not afford this. He also said he is planning to review all regulation, more uncertainty for business, I will guaranty there will be changes and additions well beyond looking for regulations to reduce. His hiring tax credits are short term, business look longer that that when planning so a short term deal will not do much. This is a smaller version of the 1 trillion dollar stimulus that we had to pass immediatly to keep unemployment under 8%. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice well, we just cant afford to let that happen.