Bush is a hero

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
And yet, we have a million less workers in the labor force than the day barry took office, and 25 million unemployed, underemployed or just no longer working.
<quoted text>
Bush had us at nearly full employment for much oh his time in office. It's much more difficult to create more jobs when everyone that wants to work is already employed. obama on the other hand, should be having a golden opportunity to create jobs, as there are 25 million people looking for jobs of one sort or another, but it's his policies that are preventing companies from taking the risk of hiring new people.
<quoted text>
Didn't you just claim, falsely, a couple of days ago that President Reagan raised taxes?
OK, not for you, you've seen this stuff before and didn't understand it, but for the new additions to this forum.
Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reag...
<quoted text>
The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/201...
<quoted text>
In your fantasy world, maybe. Unfortunately for you, some of us know the truth.

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
Canada
In 2003, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) rejected a Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA) application to bring Fox News to Canada because Fox News U.S. and Global Television were planning to create Fox News Canada, a combination of U.S. and Canadian news. However in 2004, after a Fox U.S. executive said there were no plans to create the combined channel, the CRTC approved an application to bring Fox News to Canada.[80]
Fox News Channel is currently offered by Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV. A notable exception is Vidéotron, Canada's third largest cable company, which has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>"soundbite over substance" reflects the shallowness of the (apparently) average voter. What I meant by 'the fickle part changing rapidly' in my other post, is that we seem to be getting more entrenched as voting blocs on one side or 'tother, and this makes us less likely to listen to opposing views with any kind of open mind. Which I don't believe is good for our Republic. I think we need to be more united as a country, and the opposite seems to be happening.
I wish we had more newsrooms like 'The Newsroom'.(HBO series, Sundays at 9pm Eastern time.) Have you caught that one yet? It's wonderful.

Judged:

2

2

2

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good post. Many appear to not understand the value of listening to opposing sides. That, combined with a lack of accountability on the part of those diseminating information leads us down paths such as a lack of action on global warming even when there are compelling benefits to act that pay off even if global warming was false.

Judged:

2

1

1

BobinTX wrote:

<quoted text>
Could it be tha FOX News had to protect itself from the mediamatters type folks that are constantly looking for errors as an excuse to shut FOX News down? All news bureaus make mistakes, or report things incorrectly, only FOX News has left-wing fanatics watching for any error, and looking to shut them down for any mistakes.
FOX News had to defend their right of free speech, even if there are errors made.

Judged:

2

1

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course sometimes when the media personality shows his bias I'd happily pay the price of admission twice. Chris Matthews telling the country that Obama "sends a tingle up his leg" had me laughing for a week.

Lyndi wrote:

<quoted text>
I think very few listen to both sides and I also think journalism has changed lanes from from striving to provide the fastest, most accurate accounting, to what will get the most viewers. People have also grown accustomed to listen to the news depending on who's delivering it. MSNBC offers up brunettes while FOX seems to retain alot of buxom blondes...or is it the other way around?
Once reputable magazines are ridiculously biased now and people are on overload with those too. Standing in a check out line in a supermarket and glancing at a NEWSWEEK, you had Michelle Bachman on the cover of NEWSWEEK looking as though she had escaped from a mental institution and prior to that Obama was posed in thoughtful prayer or with a halo over his head.
Bottome line >>>> the media are playing to the people for ratings.
It will never stop. I predict it will only get worse. They are getting better at selling their particular brand of news and the consumer is getting screwed because it's the consumer who has to take all the information and try to sift through alot of junk to find a nugget of truth.
Of course sometimes when the media personality shows his bias I'd happily pay the price of admission twice. Chris Matthews telling the country that Obama "sends a tingle up his leg" had me laughing for a week.

Judged:

1

1

1

bad bob wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I guess we HAVE been over it b4. But my alzheimers doesn't even recall last week in here. Also, actually watching Fox, and having it as one of a few background feeds while working at the computer, isn't quite the same.

Unlike the MSM, Fox employs several permanent on-air Liberal hosts, along with many regular Liberal analysts & contributors.
Anyone that watches FNN can verify that.
Try finding anything CLOSE (in reverse), in any of the MSM outlets. So if that's "defending my brand", I plead no contest!

Judged:

2

2

1

okb2 wrote:

Here is an article that implies some of the "embarrassing" but completely legal things that might be in Romney's tax returns.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-06/romn...
The article states that Romney may have made about $50 Mil on the deal. I think that means if he kept the money overseas he may not have paid taxes on it at all which makes it the equivalent of a 401K for the little guy.

Judged:

1

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I would take non-voting entities (corporations, unions, PAC's, etc...) out of the election process for the most part. Maybe allow them to do issue ads provided they don't mention or allude to candidates or parties.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for supporting what I stated.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good post. Many appear to not understand the value of listening to opposing sides. That, combined with a lack of accountability on the part of those diseminating information leads us down paths such as a lack of action on global warming even when there are compelling benefits to act that pay off even if global warming was false.

Judged:

3

2

2

Roberta G wrote:

<quoted text>
I watch FOX and I do agree with what you say here, BB. FOX does have several permanent liberal hosts and I've always been struck by how diligently O'Reilly tries to balance liberal vs. conservative voices on his show.
With one exception, however. When it comes to protecting children, he shows no mercy toward those who would block Jessica's Law, or in any other way advance another cause at the expense of children. And that's ONE skewed point-of-view I wholeheartedly support.

karlVII wrote:

<quoted text>
In case you failed to read and watch the video FoxNews defended their right to LIE to the public they were not defending their right to "make mistakes" they purposely wanted to air erroneous reports and call it "News"