Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted With Obama Administration.
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Nov 6, 2010 5:19 PM
KnightRyder;547098 wrote:but fox knows their viewers are so stupid they will believe anything.
I guess that's why they're #1. :p
Nov 6, 2010 5:19pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Nov 6, 2010 9:39 PM
KnightRyder;547098 wrote:this story is filled with nothing but lies , fox took that story and ran with it knowing it was completly false. but fox knows their viewers are so stupid they will believe anything.

Probably just like those people who deny that unions aren't up to their eyeballs playing in the political sandbox.
Just like those people who deny that the upper levels of unions are having a pretty good life, while the average worker is striking on a company that is going bankrupt and losing their homes.


Yeah... some people are so stupid...
Nov 6, 2010 9:39pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 6, 2010 10:12 PM
Anyone who believed the $200 million a day thing or that there aren't corrupt things that go on with unions today is stupid.
Nov 6, 2010 10:12pm
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Nov 7, 2010 10:24 AM
believer;547352 wrote:I guess that's why they're #1. :p

that shows you how many stupid people live in this country
Nov 7, 2010 10:24am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Nov 7, 2010 10:33 AM
KnightRyder;548392 wrote:that shows you how many stupid people live in this country
Feel free to move to the Great White North where you can hang out with smart union-loving thugs - er I mean - leftists like yourself.
Nov 7, 2010 10:33am
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Nov 7, 2010 10:57 AM
believer;548406 wrote:Feel free to move to the Great White North where you can hang out with smart union-loving thugs - er I mean - leftists like yourself.

well if you dont like the way things are then you can move. your the one doing all the whining. and furthermore why dont you show me some proof of this 200 million a day venture. and the reason fox is #1 is because stupid people are fun to watch. maybe you can seek a job with them. it would make viewing more pleasurable.
Nov 7, 2010 10:57am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Nov 7, 2010 11:05 AM
KnightRyder;548419 wrote:well if you dont like the way things are then you can move. your the one doing all the whining. and furthermore why dont you show me some proof of this 200 million a day venture. and the reason fox is #1 is because stupid people are fun to watch. maybe you can seek a job with them. it would make viewing more pleasurable.
I really wanted avoid this, but for whatever reason I feel compelled to do it nonetheless.

After you've established a firm handle on proper grammar, spelling, sentence structure and punctuation, it's my humble opinion that you'll be in a far more credible position to judge the stupidity of other people.
Nov 7, 2010 11:05am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 7, 2010 11:16 AM
Believer, I already made that joke in the birth control thread. :)
Nov 7, 2010 11:16am
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Nov 7, 2010 1:00 PM
believer;548425 wrote:I really wanted avoid this, but for whatever reason I feel compelled to do it nonetheless.

After you've established a firm handle on proper grammar, spelling, sentence structure and punctuation, it's my humble opinion that you'll be in a far more credible position to judge the stupidity of other people.

trying aviod the real issue , because you dont know the answer? or dont have a good response? nice try but your ploy is way too transparent. maybe you should try dealing in facts , the you could become credible. i doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Nov 7, 2010 1:00pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Nov 7, 2010 1:19 PM
KnightRyder;548550 wrote:trying aviod the real issue , because you dont know the answer? or dont have a good response? nice try but your ploy is way too transparent. maybe you should try dealing in facts , the you could become credible. i doubt that will happen anytime soon.
try talk you like but cant cause to stoopid
Nov 7, 2010 1:19pm
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Nov 7, 2010 2:34 PM
believer;548580 wrote:try talk you like but cant cause to stoopid

it make me laugh that you would call anyone stupid. but then again that is what the truly stupid do. you are believing a story that was aired with no facts to back it up. but yet you believe it. do you also believe in the tooth fairy, easter bunny and santa claus? well if faux news said it was true , then i sure you would. now i know why your screen name is believer. because you believe anything.
Nov 7, 2010 2:34pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Nov 7, 2010 3:11 PM
KnightRyder;548699 wrote:it make me laugh that you would call anyone stupid. but then again that is what the truly stupid do. you are believing a story that was aired with no facts to back it up. but yet you believe it. do you also believe in the tooth fairy, easter bunny and santa claus? well if faux news said it was true , then i sure you would. now i know why your screen name is believer. because you believe anything.
WTF are you talking about? I have NEVER argued anything with you at all on this thread until you started labeling people stupid just a few short posts ago. You are confusing me with someone else.

Or are you too stupid to remember?
Nov 7, 2010 3:11pm
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Nov 7, 2010 4:00 PM
believer;548768 wrote:WTF are you talking about? I have NEVER argued anything with you at all on this thread until you started labeling people stupid just a few short posts ago. You are confusing me with someone else.

Or are you too stupid to remember?

did you argue with i wear the pants with his post at #404? no because he cut from the same cloth as yourself
Nov 7, 2010 4:00pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Nov 7, 2010 4:40 PM
knightryder,

I think you have believer confused with me?
Nov 7, 2010 4:40pm
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Nov 7, 2010 4:51 PM
the botton line here is that fox took a story that was a complete falsehood and ran with it. and why? because the knew their viewers would believe it. thats shoody irresponsible jouralism. comparable with the Star or any other super market tabloid. and how many poster here believe that nonsense? probably all those on right.
Nov 7, 2010 4:51pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Nov 7, 2010 4:56 PM
KnightRyder;549030 wrote:the botton line here is that fox took a story that was a complete falsehood and ran with it. and why? because the knew their viewers would believe it. thats shoody irresponsible jouralism. comparable with the Star or any other super market tabloid. and how many poster here believe that nonsense? probably all those on right.

Honestly, there's probably not one newspaper or news station who has not had to make some sort of retraction on a story that was reported wrong, misrepresented, misstated, etc. I don't know if FOX retracted or amended it or not, though.
Nov 7, 2010 4:56pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 7, 2010 5:06 PM
While I think KnightRyder is over reacting here, I do believe that Fox could have easily realized this $200 million number wasn't real if it thought about it at all.

Doesn't mean they did anything wrong or that other networks don't do too. Just sloppy.
Nov 7, 2010 5:06pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Nov 7, 2010 10:37 PM
I Wear Pants;549076 wrote:I do believe that Fox could have easily realized this $200 million number wasn't real if it thought about it at all.
We really don't know for sure the 200 million number is not real until the government presents us with the factual real number. I have my doubts that it is that high. But I will be honest with you, in light of the unimaginable amount of dollars the federal government spends each year, it would not really surprise me if it was.

The federal budget for 2010 calls for expenditures of $3.5 trillion. That would average out to about $9.5 billion/day. $200 million would be about 1/50 of the feds average daily expenditures. Considering the president takes maybe 2-3 of these type trips per year the cost would not even scratch the surface of the federal budget.

Another thing these numbers are so grossly large it is hard for the human mind to grasp their significance. Our $3.5 trillion 2010 expenditures would reach the moon if stacked in dollar bills.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-04/living/trillion.dollars_1_trillion-john-allen-paulos-stimulus?_s=PM:LIVING

In my opinion there is a reason why they are not releasing a total cost on this trip. The total cost is likely close enough to the $200 million figure to cost them politically. The details may justify the expense but for security purposes they can't release them now. Therefore they hope this blows over and they never have to release the details. If not they will release them when they can if they can justify them.
Nov 7, 2010 10:37pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Nov 7, 2010 11:12 PM
This is what $1 trillion looks like in $100 bills stacked on pallets two high. See the red man on the left corner. Our 2010 federal budget calls for expenditures of 3.5 times this amount. Try to imagine 2 1/2 more on top of what you see below. This trip if it did cost $200 million would only amount to two of those skids of Ben Franklins.

If we wanted to balance the 2010 budget, it would take eliminating what you see in the picture below plus about 17 skids. In other words were screwed. It will take some great leaders that can convince the American people that they need to endure major sacrifices for their children's future to right the ship.

God save the republic.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12754

Nov 7, 2010 11:12pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 8, 2010 1:21 AM
Majorspark, the $200 million dollar was supposedly per day. That's not real and you know it. They've said it isn't real too.
Nov 8, 2010 1:21am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Nov 8, 2010 8:01 AM
I Wear Pants;549788 wrote:Majorspark, the $200 million dollar was supposedly per day. That's not real and you know it. They've said it isn't real too.

I know it is per day. Like I said I doubt it was that high. But until I see these ultra low frugal numbers, I will assume there is a lot of waste and overexpense. Par for the course when it comes to the government. Likely the reason why they will not release a total number.
I Wear Pants;549788 wrote:They've said it isn't real too.
LOL. The government says a lot of things that are not true. The government also said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Nov 8, 2010 8:01am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 8, 2010 10:42 AM
What makes you think that this trip is any more expensive than past presidential trips?

What I mean is that you probably wouldn't even be saying anything if it weren't for the ridiculous $200 million claim.

And before you go "well why don't they just tell us", have they ever made it a habit to do that during/right after presidential trips? Did we hear the exact cost of all of Bush's, and Clinton's trips during or directly after?
Nov 8, 2010 10:42am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Nov 8, 2010 10:57 AM
Pants, why does it bother you that people are starting to question things?
I'd much rather have people question the government than to stay comatose in the status quo.

And, I don't think it has so much to do with Obama as it does with government in general. President Obama just happens to be at the wrong job at the wrong time. Any President would be getting 7 kinds of hell right now, there's just no escaping it.
Nov 8, 2010 10:57am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 8, 2010 11:22 AM
It doesn't that they are questioning things. Just that I don't see the issue with this trip because right now I can only logically assume that it costs about the same as any trip. And it's actually a worthwhile one.

If we want to question and bitch about things that don't need done we need to look at the NYC Airforce One skyline photo ops and the Fly in photo ops on aircraft carriers. Those cost money and don't really do anything.
Nov 8, 2010 11:22am
KnightRyder's avatar

KnightRyder

Senior Member

1,428 posts
Nov 8, 2010 11:49 AM
majorspark;549666 wrote:We really don't know for sure the 200 million number is not real until the government presents us with the factual real number. I have my doubts that it is that high. But I will be honest with you, in light of the unimaginable amount of dollars the federal government spends each year, it would not really surprise me if it was.

The federal budget for 2010 calls for expenditures of $3.5 trillion. That would average out to about $9.5 billion/day. $200 million would be about 1/50 of the feds average daily expenditures. Considering the president takes maybe 2-3 of these type trips per year the cost would not even scratch the surface of the federal budget.

Another thing these numbers are so grossly large it is hard for the human mind to grasp their significance. Our $3.5 trillion 2010 expenditures would reach the moon if stacked in dollar bills.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-04/living/trillion.dollars_1_trillion-john-allen-paulos-stimulus?_s=PM:LIVING

In my opinion there is a reason why they are not releasing a total cost on this trip. The total cost is likely close enough to the $200 million figure to cost them politically. The details may justify the expense but for security purposes they can't release them now. Therefore they hope this blows over and they never have to release the details. If not they will release them when they can if they can justify them.

its not up to the goverment to present anything. the burden of proof is on the accuser. and what proof has the accuser provided?
Nov 8, 2010 11:49am