Bigdogg;866599 wrote:Sorry Fish, I don't swing that way. You might try Fairwood, he would be great in dance class and may let you lead. You a pitcher or a catcher?

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

1. Those in office promise everything to the American people, thus earning their vote because the people selfishly think "Hey, I'd like that!
2. Those new promises and unnecessary programs get implemented at others' expense.
3. It turns out too much money is being spent on these programs, which have been so well-received by some people since it benefits them.
4. A new group comes in to fix the issue of spending too much, and their method to fixing it is to, you guessed it, lessen the spending! Who woulda thunk it?
5. This new group offers up ways to cut spending to help even out and smooth out the issues/problems, but they are perceived as trying to hurt the American people and called "terrorists" for not letting the gov't spend money, even though the whole point is NOT to spend more money, but to spend less.
6. Media makes this new group out to be the bad guys for those reasons just mentioned.
7. People develop artificial, blind hostility towards this new group even though they are doing what they think is right (and in all seriousness, EVERYONE needs to know that cutting spending is the right thing to do, but when someone from this "new" group offers up things to cut, they get torn apart).

Writerbuckeye;865041 wrote:Here's the difference: You don't take a DIRECT QUOTE from a presidential candidate and deliberately skew it to make him look bad. Entertainer or journalist, it's not done. It's unethical on every level of journalism in the world, from TMZ to the NY Times. It's the biggest taboo of all.

And just in case you've forgotten: NBC News promotes MSNBC all the time as it's "news partner" during their broadcasts. So even if Schultz qualifies as a leftist Limbaugh in your mind, he's employed by one of the biggest news entities in the free world.

thePITman;866690 wrote:Is it just me, or does this prove they don't get that THAT'S THE POINT!? Spending is out of control and needs to be slowed down and/or stopped and/or reversed.

In my opinion, it all comes down to this cause-and-effect scenario.

1. Those in office promise everything to the American people, thus earning their vote because the people selfishly think "Hey, I'd like that!
2. Those new promises and unnecessary programs get implemented at others' expense.
3. It turns out too much money is being spent on these programs, which have been so well-received by some people since it benefits them.
4. A new group comes in to fix the issue of spending too much, and their method to fixing it is to, you guessed it, lessen the spending! Who woulda thunk it?
5. This new group offers up ways to cut spending to help even out and smooth out the issues/problems, but they are perceived as trying to hurt the American people and called "terrorists" for not letting the gov't spend money, even though the whole point is NOT to spend more money, but to spend less.
6. Media makes this new group out to be the bad guys for those reasons just mentioned.
7. People develop artificial, blind hostility towards this new group even though they are doing what they think is right (and in all seriousness, EVERYONE needs to know that cutting spending is the right thing to do, but when someone from this "new" group offers up things to cut, they get torn apart).

It's hard to reverse this trend. I told a friend a few weeks ago that I truly believe after this next election, things are getting SO BAD that I do not think we will ever see another president from "this other group who is trying to fix the problem" ever again. We are way too far in over our head (both in gov't debt and in media bias). Kudos to the media. They have changed this country to a point where it cannot be reversed.

stlouiedipalma;866703 wrote:Writer, your crusade for what you think passes as journalism these days has really got you grasping at straws when you rant like this. Does the fact that you no longer have your Jimmy Olsen cub reporter card make you this way?

jmog;866624 wrote:You can't be serious...find me a "Teabagger" that is in OFFICE in DC that has made comments like this.

You can't compare some common guy saying stuff about the liberals to the stinking Vice President saying people in CONGRESS are acting like terrorists.

You are truly blinded by your left wing hatred that you can't see the HUGE difference?

Bigdogg;867459 wrote:[video]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/29/gop-rep-trent-franks-call_n_302713.html[/video]

[video][/video]

I say there has been a lot of name calling by both sides is an understatement.

"Obama's first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers' money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries," said Frank. "Now, I got to tell you, if a president will do that, there's almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that. We shouldn't be shocked that he does all these other insane things. A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity."

A Franks spokeswoman clarified that he was referring only to the president's position on abortion.

jmog;867703 wrote:The whole quote...



He went over the top, but sending money to countries to pay for abortions, aka killing innocent lives, he wasn't far off of his criticism.

Now, again, he went over the top and he was wrong, but calling people terrorists is worst than criticizing someone for their view on abortion.

Like I said, both are completely wrong.