Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
I feel sorry you posters that stoop so low as to cyber bully those that don't agree with you. I think it's great that other people come to this board with different points of view. That's what the board is all about. Sometimes I think the reason you GOP people get so mad is because you think there is some truth to what the other side thinks.
I thought you began this thread and the others to "seek" information.
"GOP people"?
Freeze frame the ongoing discussion in this forum, specifically including, but not limited to your contribution, and search for it around 2019, which will be around the half-way mark in Hillary's first term (if she wins), and see "how SHE is doing" as it relates to HER PROMISES.
Look for this (in the tradition of Obaminable!):
"HER requests for change" will not have an effective implementation date UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!
Example: Obamacare, which was orchestrated on HER WATCH WITH HIM!!!!
So those two articles are fair and balanced?
The first one was almost 25 years old and the other was written by a guy who was Anthony Weiner's communications director.
Try harder.
The only difference between now and 25 years ago is nowadays they don't even try to hide it.
LOL, LOL, LOL... Explain what was wrong about the article. Media bias is a cuntservative myth, just like reagan was a great president.
Odumbo's boy Ben Rhodes, in as many words, says you're "#Grubered."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SassySue
Yes, and drluv1, why don't you give us more information on how the Iraq War was an excuse to give over billions of tax dollars to the industrial war complex cronies like Haliburton, Lockheed Martin and Boeing? At least Obama did something good for the people, like get more of them covered with health insurance and create more jobs. What did Bush do but get more young men killed in the wars and create a huge deficit when there was a surplus at the time he stepped into office?
I feel sorry you posters that stoop so low as to cyber bully those that don't agree with you. I think it's great that other people come to this board with different points of view. That's what the board is all about. Sometimes I think the reason you GOP people get so mad is because you think there is some truth to what the other side thinks.
You somehow always conveniently forget how both Clinton's pushed for war against Iraq, Silly Suzy Simpleton. And Odumbo had to send troops back to Iraq, Silly Suzy Simpleton. He finally realized he fucked up when he pulled out prematurely, Silly Suzy Simpleton.
it is a lie, disingenuous at best, to claim Obama has reduced the annual deficit by one trillion dollars by comparing government spending now to a one time black swan event
a true trend line would eliminate two things
1. the cost of the onetime event in 2009, and
2. the receipt, in latter years, of the repayment of the advances made in 2009 to the banks etc., not allowing the receipts of these repayments to lessen Obama's deficits. but it would also still attribute to Obama the loss on the bail out of the united auto workers for that was the work of his ideology
the growth of the debt, which is nothing more than an accumulation of the annual deficits, gives proof of the lie as well.
it is a lie, disingenuous at best, to claim Obama has reduced the annual deficit by one trillion dollars by comparing government spending now to a one time black swan event
a true trend line would eliminate two things
1. the cost of the onetime event in 2009, and
2. the receipt, in latter years, of the repayment of the advances made in 2009 to the banks etc., not allowing the receipts of these repayments to lessen Obama's deficits. but it would also still attribute to Obama the loss on the bail out of the united auto workers for that was the work of his ideology
the debt, which is nothing more than an accumulation of the annual deficits, gives proof of the lie as well.
The auto industry bailout was part of the TARP bailout that Bush signed into law (Chrysler). Yes, the funds from the bank bailout were paid back and still being paid back, which is a good thing.
Nearly half (47%) incorrectly say that the Troubled Asset Relief Program – widely known as TARP – was signed into law by President Obama
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.
Deficit is different than debt. The deficit has gone down under Obama's watch. The articles I posted previously prove that. If you don't want to believe it, it's your problem, not mine. The second article from Politifact states the deficit has gone down due to the improving economy, which Obama surely had something to do with, and therefore increased tax revenues. However, it did say that if we don't cut down on spending, it will keep increasing, and I agree.
The auto industry bailout was part of the TARP bailout that Bush signed into law (Chrysler). Yes, the funds from the bank bailout were paid back and still being paid back, which is a good thing.
the treasury made money on the bank bailout and lost money on the united auto workers bailout
the loss on the GM/UAW bailout was due to Obama's ideology
the bank bailout wasn't just paid back, money was made on it
the treasury made money on the bank bailout and lost money on the united auto workers bailout
the loss on the GM/UAW bailout was due to Obama's ideology
the bank bailout wasn't just paid back, money was made on it
Big deal, Bush was still responsible for a large part of the America's debt. You can't possibly deny that. A lot of it is due to the wars. Yes, Obama should have ended the Iraq war by now. I agree with that. However, Bush was wrong about invading Iraq. It was a bad move on his part and a very expensive one. Here is another article I found that you might find less biased about the deficit. It concludes that both parties shared responsibility for the shrinking deficit. See this article:
What about the deficit since 2011? Did it consistently decrease under Republicans?
The chart below shows that between 2012 and 2014 the deficit shrunk every year, and this year CBO estimations place the deficit at $426 billion, about $32 billion lower than the deficit before the recession began in 2008. Some economists, such as Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, have called this trend the "largest four-year improvement" in almost seven decades. Cole, then, was right about the decrease. On the other hand, one could quibble with his statement that the deficit has decreased every year since "Republicans have been in power." Republicans took control of the House in 2011 but Democrats controlled the upper chamber until 2015. This means that congressional responsibility for the budgets from 2012 to 2015 was shared by a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate.
We make no arguments here about causation or the extenuating circumstances that can shape the budget process. Instead, we argue that Cole's statement is mostly true, though it skims over two issues. He's right when he says that Democrats in the House and Senate oversaw the budget processes from 2008 to 2011. But, while three of these years saw deficit increases, one of them didn't. The 2010 budget marked a $100 billion-plus decrease. Similarly, Cole was accurate when he said that the deficit has shrunk every year since 2011. But, saying that this occurred every year since "Republicans have been in power" glosses over the fact that Democrats retained control of the Senate until 2015 and that congressional responsibility for the budget is shared by both chambers.
Read much or just have trouble comprehending? The 25 year old article was used as the basis for an article in US News quoted by another member Defending their position that the Media is biased. The other article, debunking the notion of media bias, was also printed in US news. Same source.
Did you read it? can you explain what was wrong with the analysis? Or do you just blindly repeat what you are told by cuntservatives?
No problem with either one. No problem researching either.
Comprehend this from Wikipedia concerning Fair.org, the author of the 24 year old paper:
"While NPR was speaking of "groups that claim to be media watchdogs" and "are guilty of using AstroTurf-type names that disguise their real missions", NPR pointed to FAIR, stating that "FAIR leans to the left and often criticizes the news media for giving too much time to conservative viewpoints".
Even NPR says that organization leans left and their motto refers to themselves as "progressive".
Your other article is from a long time democratic operative, who as I stated was communications director for "Carlos Danger".
Is that your idea of "fair and balanced" ? Bullshit! Both your sources are highly partisan.
As I said before, try harder.
if there is a reduction in the budget deficit, then it should be attributed to the majority repbulican congress, not obama.
had congress remained majority democrat, its very likely the budget deficit would have increased. this certainly would be attributed to the obama admin.
No problem with either one. No problem researching either.
Comprehend this from Wikipedia concerning Fair.org, the author of the 24 year old paper:
"While NPR was speaking of "groups that claim to be media watchdogs" and "are guilty of using AstroTurf-type names that disguise their real missions", NPR pointed to FAIR, stating that "FAIR leans to the left and often criticizes the news media for giving too much time to conservative viewpoints".
Even NPR says that organization leans left and their motto refers to themselves as "progressive".
Your other article is from a long time democratic operative, who as I stated was communications director for "Carlos Danger".
Is that your idea of "fair and balanced" ? Bullshit! Both your sources are highly partisan.
As I said before, try harder.
I think it's you who needs to go back to grade school. First of all Using wiki as a source of info will get you tested to see if you belong on the short bus. You realize anyone can edit it and put in what they want. Rejecting something because of where it came from is not very fair and balanced. Were there too many big words for you? you can get help with that.
But worst of all ,the article about the liberal media bias being a myth was from US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, you dumb fuck!!!!!! and posted on the Fair website.Would they be more credible if I referenced it directly from the US NEWS site? You obviously didn't read the other article critiquing the 25 year old lichter study that's part of the foundation of the notion that the media is biased. Anyone with any knowledge of statistics and research could see the flaws easily.
BTW, US NEWS seems to be rated moderately cuntsevative by pace university, Wikapedia, your trusted source, said only that they were more cuntservative than Time or Newsweek.
if there is a reduction in the budget deficit, then it should be attributed to the majority repbulican congress, not obama.
had congress remained majority democrat, its very likely the budget deficit would have increased. this certainly would be attributed to the obama admin.
Why would you say that after the bush years, I laugh when I hear someone refer to paul ryan as a fiscal conservative. Explain why the deficit exploded under Reagan and the 2nd bush, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE MY ASS!!!!!
Why would you say that after the bush years, I laugh when I hear someone refer to paul ryan as a fiscal conservative. Explain why the deficit exploded under Reagan and the 2nd bush, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE MY ASS!!!!!
Reagan was working with a Democrat congress for much of his tenure. only 6 of those years are with a republican senate.
now the 2nd bush administration, it is true that the republican congress was not fiscally responsible. they were unfortunately trying to out do the democrats in the spending department which led to them losing control of the house & sent in the latter part of Bushes term. its this group did not keep their promise.
I think it's you who needs to go back to grade school. First of all Using wiki as a source of info will get you tested to see if you belong on the short bus. You realize anyone can edit it and put in what they want. Rejecting something because of where it came from is not very fair and balanced. Were there too many big words for you? you can get help with that.
But worst of all ,the article about the liberal media bias being a myth was from US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, you dumb fuck!!!!!! and posted on the Fair website.Would they be more credible if I referenced it directly from the US NEWS site? You obviously didn't read the other article critiquing the 25 year old lichter study that's part of the foundation of the notion that the media is biased. Anyone with any knowledge of statistics and research could see the flaws easily.
BTW, US NEWS seems to be rated moderately cuntsevative by pace university, Wikapedia, your trusted source, said only that they were more cuntservative than Time or Newsweek.
You do create a target rich environment, I'll give you that.
The source of the quote from Wikipedia was NPR. It was only cited through Wiki you dolt. It was NPR that said Fair is biased left not me you fuckstick. Pay attention. And by the way we all know how Wiki works but it has no bearing here so that's why I cited thm.
Secondly, in one sentence you discount Wiki as a source out of hand and the very next thing you tell me that rejecting something because of where it came from is not very fair and balanced. Self awareness isn't your strong point is it sport?
The more recent article was published in US News but that's not the issue. It was the democratic operative author who was the problem. As for US News, saying that they are more conservative than Time or Newsweek isn't saying much either. Neither one of those outlets is conservative at this point and even if they were, all reputable media has some degree of editorial balance. But again, you just want to discount those outlets as conservative so you can discount anything that comes out of them. In other words anything they publish is tainted because of "where it came from".
And finally, even if the old article actually destroyed Lichter's study (which I don't think it does) I assure you there is newer research out there to back up Lichter's claims without relying on his. I'd suggest you have someone read it to you. And ask them to do it slowly. 'Cause you're stupid.
