OT: Democratic delegates living it up on taxpayer money

[RedWingFan]

But no one questions the LUDICROUS amount of money spent on campaigns.....Can you think of a better way of spending 200 million?

Those funds are "donated" and aren't tax payers dollars.

[S2M]

But no one questions the LUDICROUS amount of money spent on campaigns.....Can you think of a better way of spending 200 million?

Those funds are "donated" and aren't tax payers dollars.

I understand that....but c'mon, what's right - is right.....We spend multi-millions on campaigns, multi-BILLIONS on relief to OTHER countries...while people in THIS country are hurting....

Donated, or not....So the people WITH money, donate to ensure(maybe) that their candidate gets in, so they'll be sure to make MORE money for THEMSELVES....again, leaving the rest of us, hurting....get it?!

[BobbyinTN]

and raping the working man.

You like that, don't you?

Only if it's role playing and everyone is consenting.

[7 Wishes]

Donated, or not....So the people WITH money, donate to ensure(maybe) that their candidate gets in, so they'll be sure to make MORE money for THEMSELVES....again, leaving the rest of us, hurting....get it?!

This is the domain of the Republicans. They specialize in making the rich richer and insist on the validity of the failed trickle-down economic system.

[tj]

A bootlicker who pretends he is a journalist and refuses to acknowledge he is a liberal. Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck at least come right and tell you who they are politically, and do not define themselves as journalists.

Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are admitted "entertainers only" and neither of the three went any futher than high school.
They also routinely push for a wide array of Republican tenets such as less government, lower taxes etc etc.
Aside from a seething on-air hatred for Bush, what progressive orthodoxy does Olbermann pitch?

Not sure what going any "futher" than high school has to do with anything. I know many articulate, intelligent people who did not attend college. The fact that they chose career paths which did not include college doesn't mean that what they have to say is not valid.

Though I agree with many of their points, more often than not I don't find Hannity, Limbaugh or Beck to be entertaining. I have no problem with them pushing for ideas that happen to be supported by Republicans, as they tell you that they are conservative.

I haven't watched Olbermann enough to know what his orthodoxy is. From what I have seen, his hatred of Bush colors everything he says and his viewpoint. It's hard to imagine that he is objective about anything when he seems so consumed by hate. Never found him amusing on ESPN and still don't on MSNBC.

[7 Wishes]

Again, he is the only non-conservative voice in the mainstream. But he should refrain from attempting to come across as "objective".

[tj]

Donated, or not....So the people WITH money, donate to ensure(maybe) that their candidate gets in, so they'll be sure to make MORE money for THEMSELVES....again, leaving the rest of us, hurting....get it?!

This is the domain of the Republicans. They specialize in making the rich richer and insist on the validity of the failed trickle-down economic system.

Republican or Demoncrat, it doesn't matter. There is not a rich Democrat who is interested in seeing his fortune grow smaller. That's why both Bill and Hillary took huge advances to write their books after leaving the White House. I have no problem with them making money, I want to make more money. My guess is so do you.

As for failed trickle down economic system, if it is failed, how do any of us get paid? By people who have more money. The Kennedy's, Clinton's, Obama's, Edward's, Soros's (and the list goes on) housecleaners, bankers, yard men, chauffers, etc. income all trickles down from these people. The more money the boss makes, the better chance they will get some of it.

[7 Wishes]

Apples and oranges.

The system does not work. The Democrats know how to run an economy. The Republicans know how to run it into the ground.

[Rick]

Apples and oranges.

The system does not work. The Democrats know how to run an economy. The Republicans know how to run it into the ground.

BAM!! 7's rounding first as the ball sails into the upper deck. Turn out the lights, game over.

[tj]

Apples and oranges.

The system does not work. The Democrats know how to run an economy. The Republicans know how to run it into the ground.

BAM!! 7's rounding first as the ball sails into the upper deck. Turn out the lights, game over.

LOL. Democrats gave us Jimmy Carter and windfall profits taxes. Let's see, 22% interest rates, "misery index"... Reagan comes into office, cuts taxes and things got much better.

And Bill Clinton, more a politician than a true Democrat. Regardless, when the Republicans took over Congress, the economy got better. Lasted for several years. Bush inherits a recession from Clinton, cuts taxes and things got better. Democrats take control of Congress, things go into the tank.

Obama's goals: Windfall profits tax, raise taxes... He is Jimmy Carter with better teeth.

[Rick]

Apples and oranges.

The system does not work. The Democrats know how to run an economy. The Republicans know how to run it into the ground.

BAM!! 7's rounding first as the ball sails into the upper deck. Turn out the lights, game over.

LOL. Democrats gave us Jimmy Carter and windfall profits taxes. Let's see, 22% interest rates, "misery index"... Reagan comes into office, cuts taxes and things got much better.

And Bill Clinton, more a politician than a true Democrat. Regardless, when the Republicans took over Congress, the economy got better. Lasted for several years. Bush inherits a recession from Clinton, cuts taxes and things got better. Democrats take control of Congress, things go into the tank.

Obama's goals: Windfall profits tax, raise taxes... He is Jimmy Carter with better teeth.

Things since Bush took office have not been better in any way, as far as I'm concerned. We could debate that all night, but your last sentence is fucking hilarious.

[7 Wishes]

Reagan comes into office, cuts taxes and things got much better.

Bullshit. He proposed HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS MORE in spending than the Democratic Congress passed through. He raised the marginal rate and borrowed twice as much money as the economy generated. The rich got richer. The middle class stagnated.

And Bill Clinton, more a politician than a true Democrat. Regardless, when the Republicans took over Congress, the economy got better. Lasted for several years. Bush inherits a recession from Clinton, cuts taxes and things got better. Democrats take control of Congress, things go into the tank..

Again, bullshit. Clinton was brilliant - he passed legislation through that Congress resisted with all its might, and it wound up saving us from a Depreession. The Republican Congress HURT the economy because they tried to continue Reagan's FAILED trickle down platform.

Bush did not inherit a recession. Clinton's economy continued to expand in 2000, and it wasn't until Bush brought his AWFUL fiscal policy into play that the economy began to falter again. And the Dems DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF CONGRESS - stop the bait and switch shit, because you know better. Without a 60-40 majority NOTHING THEY PROPOSE CAN PASS. Hence: Bush's ridiculous federal government-expanding, middle-class eliminating economy stays the course.

You are wrong. Period, end of story. NO FACTUAL DATA SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. None.

Obama's goals: Windfall profits tax, raise taxes... He is Jimmy Carter with better teeth.[/quote]

[tj]

Reagan comes into office, cuts taxes and things got much better.

Bullshit. He proposed HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS MORE in spending than the Democratic Congress passed through. He raised the marginal rate and borrowed twice as much money as the economy generated. The rich got richer. The middle class stagnated.

And Bill Clinton, more a politician than a true Democrat. Regardless, when the Republicans took over Congress, the economy got better. Lasted for several years. Bush inherits a recession from Clinton, cuts taxes and things got better. Democrats take control of Congress, things go into the tank..

Again, bullshit. Clinton was brilliant - he passed legislation through that Congress resisted with all its might, and it wound up saving us from a Depreession. The Republican Congress HURT the economy because they tried to continue Reagan's FAILED trickle down platform.

Bush did not inherit a recession. Clinton's economy continued to expand in 2000, and it wasn't until Bush brought his AWFUL fiscal policy into play that the economy began to falter again. And the Dems DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF CONGRESS - stop the bait and switch shit, because you know better. Without a 60-40 majority NOTHING THEY PROPOSE CAN PASS. Hence: Bush's ridiculous federal government-expanding, middle-class eliminating economy stays the course.

You are wrong. Period, end of story. NO FACTUAL DATA SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS. None.

Obama's goals: Windfall profits tax, raise taxes... He is Jimmy Carter with better teeth.

[/quote]

History is what it is, regardless of your attempt to rewrite it here. Tax revenues skyrocketed after Reagan's tax cuts, but the Democratically controlled Congress spent even more than what came in. Entitlement programs grew beyond anything Reagan proposed.

Clinton passed nothing. During his first 2 years, when Democrats controlled both houses, he accomplished squat. After the Republicans won the House, Congress passed welfare reform, tax cuts, etc. Clinton saw the writing on the wall and jumped on board. Only AFTER the Republicans won the house was Clinton able to declare that "the era of big government is over". For all of my lifetime, shrinking government has been a Republican goal, not Democrat.

You are right about Clinton's economy expanding into 2000, however it was at an increasingly slowing rate. The dotcom bubble burst in March of 2000 and the ensuing financial chaos MUST have been Bush's fault, since he was not inaugurated until 10 MONTHS LATER. Economists continue to argue at what point and/or whether there even was a recession in 2000/2001. What remains as FACT is that the economy was not in good shape when Bush got into office. 9/11 hurt it even more.

I am not sure how a lack of a 60 -40 split makes Bush responsible. Even if he proposes excess spending, are you saying that with a majority in both Houses, the Democrats are powerless to stop Bush? He doesn't have a vote in either house. What secret power does he have over the Democrats that they MUST agree to what he proposes on spending?

[tj]

Apples and oranges.

The system does not work. The Democrats know how to run an economy. The Republicans know how to run it into the ground.

BAM!! 7's rounding first as the ball sails into the upper deck. Turn out the lights, game over.

LOL. Democrats gave us Jimmy Carter and windfall profits taxes. Let's see, 22% interest rates, "misery index"... Reagan comes into office, cuts taxes and things got much better.

And Bill Clinton, more a politician than a true Democrat. Regardless, when the Republicans took over Congress, the economy got better. Lasted for several years. Bush inherits a recession from Clinton, cuts taxes and things got better. Democrats take control of Congress, things go into the tank.

Obama's goals: Windfall profits tax, raise taxes... He is Jimmy Carter with better teeth.

Things since Bush took office have not been better in any way, as far as I'm concerned. We could debate that all night, but your last sentence is fucking hilarious.

Things since Bush took office are different than they were prior, but the same can be said for any president. Better is relative.

[7 Wishes]

Bush blamed Wall Street for being "drunk" with greed and urged the financiers to "sober up."

Today the Office of Management and Budget acknowledged that its budget projections for 2009 will be even higher than expected -- now estimated at a record $482 billion.

The White House blamed a weak economy, noting that "the housing slump, tighter conditions in credit markets and continuing energy price shocks have cut into the expected growth rate." And the OMB also lowered its economic growth forecast to 1.6% for this year.

"George W. Bush inherited a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, which he proceeded to turn into a projected deficit of more than $4 trillion. When President Bush took office in January 2001 the Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of $635 billion in 2008 and $710 billion in 2009. Now, OMB projects deficits of $389 billion and $482 billion in those years respectively -- a swing of more than $1 trillion in each year."




Please read the chart, tj. Youi're WRONG.

[Skylorde]

Keith Olbermann has singlehandedly done the job of the mainstream media.
Keeping the average citizen at home apprised of high constitutional crimes - not the exclusive domain of liberals or conservatives.
Unlike Hannity or Limbaugh or Beck, I have never heard Olbermann once advocate partisan political prescriptions (i.e. more governmental regulation, tax rates etc.)
The rest of the media has been so bullyragged into not appearing "liberal" that they have forgotten the very nature of their profession - ensuring an informed electorate.
Like Scott McClellan said, maybe if their actually was a liberal media, we wouldn’t be stuck in Iraq.

I'm simply speechless. Really.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm simply speechless. Really.

Your grand contribution to the MR political fray has been fish stories of Michael Moore visiting Iran (debunked) and more recently, propagating an Obama spam email (also debunked).
Either you're taking advantage of people's unwillingess to do their own research, or you're a naive foil carrying out the hatchet work of others.

Olbermann's anti-Bush screeds notwithstanding, no news anchor has done more to painstakingly chronicle this gov't's tresspasses on civil liberties while, quite possibly, ushering in a bold new era of civic enlightened couch potatoes.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Again, he is the only non-conservative voice in the mainstream. But he should refrain from attempting to come across as "objective".

The truth doesn't always have two sides.
Reporters that go above and beyond always trying to satisfy both sides (i.e. the Wolf Blitzers, Brian Williams, the late Tim Russert) get indiscriminately broad brushed as "the liberal media" anyways.

[conversationpc]

Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck are admitted "entertainers only"...

This is lie.

...and neither of the three went any futher than high school.

And this is important why? Hell, you didn't even spell "further" correctly and the phrase "neither of the three" is grammatically incorrect. The word "neither" is used when referring to TWO options, not three or more. What was that about not going "futher than high school"?

They also routinely push for a wide array of Republican tenets such as less government, lower taxes etc etc.

Well, at least you got this one right.

The truth doesn't always have two sides.
Reporters that go above and beyond always trying to satisfy both sides (i.e. the Wolf Blitzers, Brian Williams, the late Tim Russert) get indiscriminately broad brushed as "the liberal media" anyways.

I don't remember Tim Russert ever being referred to as part of the liberal media.

[Barb]

Olbermann's anti-Bush screeds notwithstanding, no news anchor has done more to painstakingly chronicle this gov't's tresspasses on civil liberties while, quite possibly, ushering in a bold new era of civic enlightened couch potatoes.

Did Olbermann happen to cover this story lastnight?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventio ... 622&page=1

Why would the Democrat big wigs have this reporter who was standing on the sidewalk arrested? Sidewalks are public property. He wasn't just arrested, he was man handled. If Republicans had done this Olbermann would have an on air anneurism.

[conversationpc]

Olbermann's anti-Bush screeds notwithstanding, no news anchor has done more to painstakingly chronicle this gov't's tresspasses on civil liberties while, quite possibly, ushering in a bold new era of civic enlightened couch potatoes.

Did Olbermann happen to cover this story lastnight?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventio ... 622&page=1

Why would the Democrat big wigs have this reporter who was standing on the sidewalk arrested? Sidewalks are public property. He wasn't just arrested, he was man handled. If Republicans had done this Olbermann would have an on air anneurism.

[sarcasm]Boy, those Democrats are really cleaning up the ethics problems, huh?[/sarcasm]

Not surprisingly, I haven't seen even one mention of this on Media Matters yet.

[Barb]

Olbermann's anti-Bush screeds notwithstanding, no news anchor has done more to painstakingly chronicle this gov't's tresspasses on civil liberties while, quite possibly, ushering in a bold new era of civic enlightened couch potatoes.

Did Olbermann happen to cover this story lastnight?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventio ... 622&page=1

Why would the Democrat big wigs have this reporter who was standing on the sidewalk arrested? Sidewalks are public property. He wasn't just arrested, he was man handled. If Republicans had done this Olbermann would have an on air anneurism.

[sarcasm]Boy, those Democrats are really cleaning up the ethics problems, huh?[/sarcasm]

Not surprisingly, I haven't seen even one mention of this on Media Matters yet.

Did you watch the video of the arrest? Unfreaking believable!

[Skylorde]

Olbermann's anti-Bush screeds notwithstanding, no news anchor has done more to painstakingly chronicle this gov't's tresspasses on civil liberties while, quite possibly, ushering in a bold new era of civic enlightened couch potatoes.

What you meant to say was "The Bush Administration's trespasses on civil liberties" and to be quite honest, I have to agree with Olbermann on that point.. but it ends there. If you think for a second the left champions civil liberties then you have truly earned the moniker Melodic Rock's resident nut job.

Olbermann shrouds the diarrea flowing out of his mouth as journalism. Beck points out time and time again that he IS conservative and his "view points" (note the lack of the word NEWS) are rooted in conservative ideology. Can you say the same about Olbermann? I think not...

It'll be interesting to see if Olbermann continues his "attack on government" after Obama is elected. Considering the fact Olbermann had a virtual on-air orgasm when describing Hillary's speech to the DNC as a "Home run", my money is on Olbermann becoming one of the Obama administrations biggest cheer leaders.

[Skylorde]

Did Olbermann happen to cover this story lastnight?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventio ... 622&page=1

Why would the Democrat big wigs have this reporter who was standing on the sidewalk arrested? Sidewalks are public property. He wasn't just arrested, he was man handled. If Republicans had done this Olbermann would have an on air anneurism.

Of course he didn't Barb, that could make the democrats look bad! Just like the left's mantra: "Freedom of speech for everyone that agrees with us" it's "freedom of the press for everyone that makes us look good". Obviously there was something going on they didn't want to get taped of photographed otherwise why would they care if the camera crew were out on the sidewalk?

Eslocker and his ABC News colleagues are spending the week investigating the role of corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention for a series of Money Trail reports on ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson."

Hmmm, I'm *certain* that had nothing to do with his arrest!

[conversationpc]

Did you watch the video of the arrest? Unfreaking believable!

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. I probably would've gotten in more trouble than that guy because that officer pushed him out into the street and I probably would've decked the SOB.

[RossValoryRocks]

Did you watch the video of the arrest? Unfreaking believable!

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. I probably would've gotten in more trouble than that guy because that officer pushed him out into the street and I probably would've decked the SOB.

I will bet money the cops are in deep shit. As much as I hate the ACLU they will be all over this and will probably get all those cops fired, and rightly so.

[Barb]

This William Ayers thing is really heating up too. This guy has some really creepy buddies.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mm ... DY=&w=MA==

[Barb]

Have you guys seen the Obam-opolis?



McCain was right, this was built by the Britney Spears set design people. Dude thinks he's President already.

There is a very fine line between confidence and arrogance. BO has gone way over it.

[conversationpc]

Have you guys seen the Obam-opolis?



McCain was right, this was built by the Britney Spears set design people. Dude thinks he's President already.

There is a very fine line between confidence and arrogance. BO has gone way over it.

BO...

NO ONE with BO should be confident or arrogant.

[Rhiannon]

BO...

NO ONE with BO should be confident or arrogant.

Dear Dave,

Thank you for pouncing all over a joke I was struggling to resist making. +1 for stepping up to the plate.

NoMoBo '08,

Rhiannon