OT: Has McCain Thrown in the Towel?

[RossValoryRocks]

Now you guys have resorted to name-calling again. People from whom I wouldn't expect that kind of behavior on an individual basis.

Dave, your article does little to counter the one I posted. It's that simple.

You do it on a daily basis, so why shouldn't we respond in kind?

I doubt you even understand reasonable discourse.

You are always right, your Messiah is running for President, and according to Michael Moore anyways, a potential national tragedy (Gustav) shows God is on your side.

Give it up. Not ONE of your sources is an independent source, they are all left leaning sources that are biased.

Such as the utter shit you posted about no recession in 2001. All taken from left wing sites. While we countered with University studies done by independent voices.

You really need to take the DailyKOS off of your favorites.

You also never answer a question when it shows you either no nothing about what you bather on about or contradicts your position. Such as Bill Clinton saying in 2003, independent of the intelligence briefings that he knew Iraq had WMDs.

You are out of your league arguing with the conservatives on this forum, we don't use bullshit party line sayings and other tripe you find so appealing we find impartial sources and use them.

Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong. We can at least admit our failings and the failings of those high officials who we have supported. You do none of those things.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You morons will believe anything you are told. I'm not sure I heard the segment TNC is talking about but Glenn has been doing a bunch of comedy spots on the show recently with one of his staff members playing the typical mindless liberal idiot and Glenn playing the part of the person setting the idiot straight. It's mostly comedy parlayed with truth. There's no brainwashing going on. Good grief, do your own research instead of believing everything TNC says. He's often wrong and always skewed.

I never said it was brainwashing and I never denied it was done under the guise of boyish sarcasm (Beck's singular ace up his sleeve).
I am just genuinely surprised that anybody, regardless of party, would want to associate themselves with this war long after the confetti has been swept up and the ballroom lights turned off.
Supporting it doesn't strengthen your Conservative bonafides, it merely makes you an accessory to geopolitical fraud.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You of course have corroborating evidence of this right?

It's not some illuminati-sized conspiracy. Most of them, including Beck, boasted about it right on the air.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... e_w-2.html

Oh like..."But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never." January 26th, 1998 William Jefferson Clinton

Though I have no empirical data to back this up, I have a sneaking suspicion many of today’s most vociferous Conservatives made their ideological transition upon learning Clinton could actually demand the attention of the fair sex. Total sour grapes.

James Buchanan sucked cock and FDR's wife is alleged to have eaten pussy – what were the implications on policy?
Grow up, man.

[RossValoryRocks]

You of course have corroborating evidence of this right?

It's not some illuminati-sized conspiracy. Most of them, including Beck, boasted about it right on the air.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... e_w-2.html

That isn't exactly access, at least not it the way you were implying. I doubt Hannity et al. can call up the White House and tell Bush their feelings about what he is doing.

[7 Wishes]

You do it on a daily basis, so why shouldn't we respond in kind?[/quote]

Only when I'm referred to as an "idiot" or those of us who aren't social conservatives get torn to shreds.

I doubt you even understand reasonable discourse.

Oh, you're just the beacon of open-mindedness. You are the most stubborn and intellectually disinterested person on this forum.

You are always right, your Messiah is running for President, and according to Michael Moore anyways, a potential national tragedy (Gustav) shows God is on your side.

Right, Michael Moore is my messiah. This sounds like something YOU would predicate a vote upon - their supposed "Messiahhood". Whatever. Any asshole who would use a potential tragedy to spread a political message is an asshole. Wait a minute...your party has done that on many occasions!

Give it up. Not ONE of your sources is an independent source, they are all left leaning sources that are biased.

This is the MOST PREPOSTEROUS of all your false allegations. These "sources" are actual DOCUMENTS that NO ONE DISPUTES are in existence. So many people in the Administration have either given direct testimony or revealed in other circumstances that Bush's claim about the dissemination of WMD information is impossible to believe.

Such as the utter shit you posted about no recession in 2001. All taken from left wing sites. While we countered with University studies done by independent voices.

The factual economic finding that there is NO significant coorelation between the top tax rate and GDP growth rate, hourly wage growth, or job creation cannot be disputed...economists like Joel Friedman and Robert Greenstein of the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities found that Bush's tax cut led to the top 1 in 400 taxpayers recieving as much from the tax cut as the bottom 95% of tax filers combined. Even if Bush had "inherited a recession" (which he did not) he began enacting the WORST POSSIBLE ECONOMIC PLATFORMS for a economy on the edge of recession.

You really need to take the DailyKOS off of your favorites.

Whatever, you Limbaugh- and Hannity- worshiping neo-conservative. I didn't even know WTF that is until I googled it just now.

You also never answer a question when it shows you either no nothing about what you bather on about or contradicts your position. Such as Bill Clinton saying in 2003, independent of the intelligence briefings that he knew Iraq had WMDs.

Yes, I do. I FLUSH THE RESPONSE WITH INDISPUTABLE FACT. I have done it MANY TIMES. YOU PEOPLE choose to ignore it.

You are out of your league arguing with the conservatives on this forum, we don't use bullshit party line sayings and other tripe you find so appealing we find impartial sources and use them.

Right. Whatever you say. Whether or not you agree with me, my intellect is not in dispute. Neither is yours. You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong. We can at least admit our failings and the failings of those high officials who we have supported. You do none of those things.

YOU NEVER ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG. I, on the other hand - and G.I. Jim, Dave, and others will testify to this - I have changed my perspective on a number of issues after being given enough information to make me question some beliefs I once held.

You are no more likely to admit failure than you are to join Gays for Dukakis in 2012. Go beat up a homosexual and then go whack off in your Trans Am.

[Barb]

Glen Beck is hilarious.

Glenn + Stu = total hilarity.

[7 Wishes]

I think Hannity-Colmes is hysterical. I mean, with Hannity, you have a well-spoken (albeit factually inaccurate) good-looking guy who is a top-notch leader and host, and then you take Colmes, the ugly duckling, occasionally stuttering, mealy-mouthed liberal who gets no air time. It's TV history's biggest perpetual rout.

[Barb]

I think Hannity-Colmes is hysterical. I mean, with Hannity, you have a well-spoken (albeit factually inaccurate) good-looking guy who is a top-notch leader and host, and then you take Colmes, the ugly duckling, occasionally stuttering, mealy-mouthed liberal who gets no air time. It's TV history's biggest perpetual rout.

Sean Hannity makes my skin crawl. Colmes is just a sniveling wuss.

[Uno_up]

I don't mind watching Hannity/Colmes knowing I'll get both degrees of biasness. Since the closest thing to a roughly unbiased news source is probably The News Hour on PBS (a great sleep aid)... Compared to the Keith Olbermann & Bill O'Reilly (populist trouble-maker) shows. Roughly unbiased still is affected by what is reported vs. left out, amount of time focusing on one point vs. another, ability of guests to articulate one view v. another, etc...Your best bet is to get news from several different sources, apply your free-thinking calculus, and always remain open to changing your opinion when new information is received. I think the last part is especially difficult for partisans, questioning your beliefs and taking a third path is difficult.

[Eric]

Even if Bush had "inherited a recession" (which he did not) he began enacting the WORST POSSIBLE ECONOMIC PLATFORMS for a economy on the edge of recession.

Yes he did inherit a recession (at least using the actual definition of a recession and not the homemade one the libs have cooked up) and since GDP is comprised 66% of consumer spending it makes sense to enact tax cuts to stimulate consumer spending!

[Barb]

Compared to the Keith Olbermann & Bill O'Reilly (populist trouble-maker) shows.

Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, providing his analysis and opinion of various news stories. Keith Olbermann is pretending to be a journalist - un unbiased journalist.

[conversationpc]

Compared to the Keith Olbermann & Bill O'Reilly (populist trouble-maker) shows.

Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, providing his analysis and opinion of various news stories. Keith Olbermann is pretending to be a journalist - un unbiased journalist.

He's not even doing a very good job of that.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Olbermann is not under any obligation to offer a disclaimer before his nightly newscast.
Most editorializing comes at the end of the show, or glibly offerred between breaks as he rattles off the day's "worst persons."
Olbermann is the living embodiment not of any institutional northeastern media bias, but of the phrase: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

And by the look of things, he's got you, Barb, and the entire Conservative echo chamber running scared.

[conversationpc]

Olbermann is not under any obligation to offer a disclaimer before his nightly newscast.
Most editorializing comes at the end of the show, or glibly offerred between breaks as he rattles off the day's "worst persons."

No one says he should have to have a disclaimer. What we're talking about is his pretending to be an unbiased "journalist".

Olbermann is the living embodiment not of any institutional northeastern media bias, but of the phrase: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
And by the look of things, he's got you all running scared.

He's got me running laughing. His show is good for almost as much comedy as he used to do on his ESPN gig.

[The_Noble_Cause]

No one says he should have to have a disclaimer. What we're talking about is his pretending to be an unbiased "journalist".

And he is pretending how exactly?
It's his newscast, he can do with it what he will.

Wofl Blitzer, a guy who kowtows to every side of every issue (and former Pat Robertson employee), was described on here recently as a "known lefty."
So adherance to objectivity is immaterial when it comes to dealing with ravenous prairie dogs like you.
You'll go so far as to make a Conservative whipping boy out of CSPAN's decidedly non-partisan Brian Lamb.

[Barb]

Olbermann is not under any obligation to offer a disclaimer before his nightly newscast.
Most editorializing comes at the end of the show, or glibly offerred between breaks as he rattles off the day's "worst persons."
Olbermann is the living embodiment not of any institutional northeastern media bias, but of the phrase: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

And by the look of things, he's got you, Barb, and the entire Conservative echo chamber running scared.

A journalist doesn't editorialize. A journalist reports the news --- the facts of the news period.

Scared of Keith Olbermann? The only people who watch him are the very far fringes of the left wing in this country. Everyone else thinks he's basically retarded.

[The_Noble_Cause]

A journalist doesn't editorialize. A journalist reports the news --- the facts of the news period.

No, that's an achorman.
As Keith explained it...

"It is a newscast with commentary and analysis, the way most really good newscasts used to be,” he says. “...if you listen to those daily Murrow newscasts in the forties on the radio, Murrow would do the news, two and a half, three minutes, take a break, and then do a two- or three-minute commentary."

Scared of Keith Olbermann? The only people who watch him are the very far fringes of the left wing in this country. Everyone else thinks he's basically retarded.

O’Reilly's key demographic have been revealed to be in the 65+ demographic, and less educated then viewers of Jon Stewart...same deal with Limbaugh.
The only earmark of Olbermann's so-called "rampant liberalism" is his dislike for Bush, and given his most recent poll numbers, that's a pretty mainstream position to assume.

[Barb]

The only earmark of Olbermann's so-called "rampant liberalism" is his dislike for Bush, and given his most recent poll numbers, that's a pretty mainstream position to assume.

.

How about his on air orgasms over both Michelle and Barack Obama's speeches? How about his naming the worst person in the world a conservative pretty much every single day of the week? Doesn't he also blog on the Daily Kos?

You can't possibly be serious that you think this guy is fair and an actual journalist!?

[conversationpc]

You can't possibly be serious that you think this guy is fair and an actual journalist!?

He's not.

[conversationpc]

O’Reilly's key demographic have been revealed to be in the 65+ demographic, and less educated then viewers of Jon Stewart...same deal with Limbaugh.

O'Reilly has such high ratings, I'm pretty sure it doesn't really matter what his "key demographic" is.

The only earmark of Olbermann's so-called "rampant liberalism" is his dislike for Bush, and given his most recent poll numbers, that's a pretty mainstream position to assume.

The Democratic-controlled Congress has far lower ratings than even Bush, yet Olbermann's hate seems to be far more concentrated in the other direction, against Bush and other conservatives.

[The_Noble_Cause]

How about his on air orgasms over both Michelle and Barack Obama's speeches?

So he liked the speech, what of it?...so too did conservative troglodytes Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan.
Funny how Hannity and ilk keep mentioning MSNBC's Chris Mathews gushing over Obama without ever once mentioning Mathew's former incessant drooling over Bush having the "sunny nobility of Lincoln" and how "manly" he looked in his top gun flight suit.

How about his naming the worst person in the world a conservative pretty much every single day of the week?

That segment takes up maybe two minutes tops - and it usually comes between commerical breaks.
Its ancillary to the day's headlines.
Its candy.

You can't possibly be serious that you think this guy is fair and an actual journalist!?

Well, what is fair?
Cut n' dry newscasts like the ones hosted by Brian Williams and Charles Gibson also don't escape the paranoid ire of the GOP chorus line.
Katie Couric even went so far as to have Limbaugh on her inaugural CBS broadcast, and Williams frequently pays homage to both him and Peggy Noonan in his blog. Yet still they are indiscriminatey broadbrushed as "the liberal media."
The continual 'playing the refs' by the Right has diluted what news even is.

Olbermann wil not be buffaloed into submission, or obligatorily have two sides come on and debate what color the sky is, when just one will suffice.

[Arkansas]

Glenn Beck the other day was giving his right wing audience tips on how to defend the surge and the interventionist war to thier friends.

Sounds like a cult leader teaching his followers how to brainwash people in order to get converts.

You morons will believe anything you are told. I'm not sure I heard the segment TNC is talking about but Glenn has been doing a bunch of comedy spots on the show recently with one of his staff members playing the typical mindless liberal idiot and Glenn playing the part of the person setting the idiot straight. It's mostly comedy parlayed with truth. There's no brainwashing going on. Good grief, do your own research instead of believing everything TNC says. He's often wrong and always skewed.

"Arguments against Idiots" complete with theme song. It's comedy. Good grief.

I think people also need to remember that ALL these boobs on tv are entertainers. It's a business. They're in it for ratings. If they don't have an audience, then they don't stay on the air. So much crap out here treating these guys like they're university think tank scholars or the like. Geez. They're on tv to stay on tv. Popular TV is their job, not true intellect.

You can still like someone and disagree with them.
You can agree with someone and still dislike them.
You can do both with the TV guys.
No matter what theories of government they spew, I watch them for entertainment. If I think for one minute that I'm enriching my life by subscribing to bull$hit TV, then I'm a lost cause.


later~

[conversationpc]

I think people also need to remember that ALL these boobs on tv are entertainers. It's a business. They're in it for ratings. If they don't have an audience, then they don't stay on the air. So much crap out here treating these guys like they're university think tank scholars or the like. Geez. They're on tv to stay on tv. Popular TV is their job, not true intellect.

Beck has done lots of stories that were not popular and was asked not to do by TV execs, so it is not ALL about ratings.

[RedWingFan]

I am just genuinely surprised that anybody, regardless of party, would want to associate themselves with this war long after the confetti has been swept up and the ballroom lights turned off.

It's called sticking around to get the job done, even if the popular/political winds change and it eventually hurts your poll numbers. It's what responsible adults are SUPPOSED to do. Of course you'd be "genuinely surprised."
Which is completely counter to launching a couple of missles at Iraq on the eve of your testimony before a Grand Jury. Done strictly to get a round of "attaboy's" and accomplishing nothing but wiping out an after hours janitor. That Bill Clinton was so great.

[Eric]

Compared to the Keith Olbermann & Bill O'Reilly (populist trouble-maker) shows.

Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, providing his analysis and opinion of various news stories. Keith Olbermann is pretending to be a journalist - un unbiased journalist.

He's not even doing a very good job of that.

BAM

and

BAM

[S2M]

Compared to the Keith Olbermann & Bill O'Reilly (populist trouble-maker) shows.

Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, providing his analysis and opinion of various news stories. Keith Olbermann is pretending to be a journalist - un unbiased journalist.

He's not even doing a very good job of that.

BAM

and

BAM

Now, now Emeril.....it's ok. Did you lose your woobie?

[Eric]

Compared to the Keith Olbermann & Bill O'Reilly (populist trouble-maker) shows.

Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, providing his analysis and opinion of various news stories. Keith Olbermann is pretending to be a journalist - un unbiased journalist.

He's not even doing a very good job of that.

BAM

and

BAM

Now, now Emeril.....it's ok. Did you lose your woobie?

My daughter calls her...."Do-Do"

[S2M]

Compared to the Keith Olbermann & Bill O'Reilly (populist trouble-maker) shows.

Bill O'Reilly is a commentator, providing his analysis and opinion of various news stories. Keith Olbermann is pretending to be a journalist - un unbiased journalist.

He's not even doing a very good job of that.

BAM

and

BAM

Now, now Emeril.....it's ok. Did you lose your woobie?

My daughter calls her...."Do-Do"

[brywool]

my daughter called hers a 'bucky'.

dang, they grow so fast...

I need a minute....

[Monker]

Yeah...and the first 2 years of the Clinton presidency were fucked up...he raised taxes hand in hand with the Democrat controlled congress and the economy gound to a halt. Then the republicans came in after the '94 elections and cut taxes and the economy went nuts.

But this time it won't be like that.

There won't be saving the economy from the likes of Pelosi and Reid.

Of course not...

Let's see...years into the mini-Bush's first term, you guys blamed Clinton for the economy. You have no recollection that the economy was tanking under daddy-Bush's, which is a HUGE reason why he was not reelected. And, you give credit to Republicans even though Clinton faught, and won, against much of the 'contract with America'. And, you forget that daddy-Bush promised 'no new taxes', and raised them anyway. So, whenever anything 'bad' happens, it's never a Republican's fault...and all good is given credit to the Republicans. And, you point out what you percieve as negatives on one side of the fence, and ignore it on the other. Makes perfect partison sense.

The FACT is the the economy was tanking under the first Bush, and it is tanking right now as the second one leaves. Argue it any way you want, but that is the fact.