Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: The RNC

  1. #1
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796

    The RNC

    Ok ok...I get it. McCain is one tough cookie.

    I've never disputed that and in fact, thought I might even vote for him against Gore in 2000, had not Rove spoiled that by smearing McCain to get an idiot elected into the Whitehouse.

    Where's the beef on the economy?

    Nuttin' last night. Nuttin'.

    Fred Thompson? Retold McCains story.

    Lieberman? While I agree with his message that we need to be less divided, the fact is, McCain isn't the same maverick he used to be. He's been toeing the party line for the last 6 years big time.

    The night read like McCains on biography. Not a lot of substance and long in the tooth on military matters.

    The best part of the night? Bush's speech. LMAO! Like he's ever got along with McCain. lol

    That and the samo samo....Stay the course..

  2. #2
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,514
    Obama's story gets retold by just about every person who stumps for him, too.

  3. #3
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    Burke, that's true but it's usually not a full night of it. What else was mentioned last night besides service to country and his past?

    There were a few digs by Thompson of course and that little stump speech by Lieberman about working together but that's it.

    I'm looking forward to Palin's speech tonight. It'll make her or break her but really, I've still not seeing what McCain was seeing in thinking that if he passes during his term that she can lead a nation.

  4. #4
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    They're going over the transcripts of Palin's speech right now. She may look all girly but it sounds like she swings a pretty big stick.
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post
    They're going over the transcripts of Palin's speech right now. She may look all girly but it sounds like she swings a pretty big stick.
    She has a penis?

  6. #6
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Izzo View Post
    She has a penis?
    I hope not, she's a MILF.
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  7. #7
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,514
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post
    it sounds like she swings a pretty big stick.
    Oh, great. The Palin Corollary to the Bush Doctrine of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.

  8. #8
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,982
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post
    I hope not, she's a MILF.
    Looks kinda like a prude, but her daughter seems to put out easy enough.

  9. #9
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    Looks kinda like a prude, but her daughter seems to put out easy enough.


    BTW, Giuliani still hasn't lost his touch.
    Have your feelings been hurt by a random act of E-Thuggery? If so, call 1-800-Waaaaahmbulance, we're here 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, to take your call, you could be due a large monetary settlement, don't delay, call now.

    "Please be careful prior to entering the world wide web, the internet is serious business"


  10. #10
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,982
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post


    BTW, Giuliani still hasn't lost his touch.
    Hes been rounding up homeless people still?

  11. #11
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    I'll give her this much. She's certianly a wizz at speechs. Reminds me just a tad of Judge Judy.

    Actually I don't mind her at all but as a VP? With the age of McCain? I dont think so. The right may tout that she's more experience than Obama but that's pretty misleading when you should also consider education and a few other things.

    My only other thought is that McCain must have fact checked her speech.

    *ducks*

  12. #12
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,877
    Quote Originally Posted by downhill View Post
    Actually I don't mind her at all but as a VP? With the age of McCain? I dont think so. The right may tout that she's more experience than Obama but that's pretty misleading when you should also consider education and a few other things.
    So you prefer a candidate for the presidency with less executive experience...and a track record..or rather..lack of track record...of really getting anything substantial or original done?
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  13. #13
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    The track record thing. That too is pretty misleading. Usually the leading Dem or Rep from the state is the one to put forth legislation. Not the junior. It's always been that way.

    Richard Durban is the Illinois senior.



    Not that Obama has been sitting in Congress, twiddling his thumbs, either. I realize it can be made to look like he's just feeding at the public trough but that's not really the case. He worked on his first law with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing all of us to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. I don't think that's a bad deal at all.



    He's also championed ethics laws to help root out the Jack Abramoff's style of corruption in Congress.

    Secondly there's his work in the Illinois Senate. Granted that's not being a governor but the last governor we elected, just possibly might go down as the worst President in history.

    Palin's comment last night about being the mayor of a small town? Come on.......retoric.

    The only thing about this ticket that doesn't bother me, is if McCain/Palin were to win, I do trust McCain to pick a great cabinet.

    Again, as to less executive experience. Imho, that's just misleading.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    So you prefer a candidate for the presidency with less executive experience...and a track record..or rather..lack of track record...of really getting anything substantial or original done?
    What's McCain done that fits your definition of 'substantial'?

  15. #15
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,877
    Quote Originally Posted by downhill View Post

    He's also championed ethics laws to help root out the Jack Abramoff's style of corruption in Congress.
    This could have some irony...as what happened with Excelon, a nuke plant in his state, his "promise to the people", and what actually did get enacted based on Excelons contributions to his campaign (suddenly his 4th largest campaign contribution).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY
    Regardless of how NBC news would be labeled as far as their stance on politics...the points still ring true. And it makes me chuckle at his "ethics bill". A little pot 'n kettle here. Nuke power plant issue, a drafted promise to the people, a huge campaign contribution by the nuke company, and a resulting bill that..really doesn't do much. People not happy, nuke plant happy.

    Dunno how original that internet access to government spending is...it is most likely something that would have happened anyways, and I wouldn't believe anything in it anyways.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  16. #16
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    Agreed he misrepresented his work on that bill, but the truth is...he rewrote it to get it passed as the Republicans in congress, who didn't/wouldn't favor a bill that could force a business to do the right thing, if it cost them money.



    Instead of listening to talk radio and tv personalities, explain to us all that Obama/McCain/whatever did this or that, look up what's being written about them on their own blogs, wiki's etc. The exaggeration's being leveled against each other, usually get explained on them.




    Izzo, McCain's biggest contribution so far is theMcCain/Feingold law, passed after 7 years of haggling in congress and watered down by Republicans who sought to limit the contributions by unions/lawyers and not touch the soft money donated by corporations and large right wing PACs. Granted the PAC's would have also extended to left wing action commetties, but they aren't as many or as influential/wealthy as the right wing has in place.

    As it was originally introduced to congress, imho, would have helped level the playing field and took big business out of the picture of election our officials, it's now to watered down to be very effective.

    McCain isn't a bottom feeder. He's been busy the whole time he's been in congress. He's been very vocal about a lot of issues.

    My only complaint is that he's moved from the middle to the far right with the neocons in the last 3 and a half years.

  17. #17
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    This could have some irony...as what happened with Excelon, a nuke plant in his state, his "promise to the people", and what actually did get enacted based on Excelons contributions to his campaign (suddenly his 4th largest campaign contribution).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY
    Regardless of how NBC news would be labeled as far as their stance on politics...the points still ring true. And it makes me chuckle at his "ethics bill". A little pot 'n kettle here. Nuke power plant issue, a drafted promise to the people, a huge campaign contribution by the nuke company, and a resulting bill that..really doesn't do much. People not happy, nuke plant happy.

    Dunno how original that internet access to government spending is...it is most likely something that would have happened anyways, and I wouldn't believe anything in it anyways.

    LOL...I should take my own advice.

    Here's the real story............ It's long but if you don't mind... Sure it's from Obama's own site but it's quoting news sources.




    Fact Check on New York Times Story
    February 02, 2008

    RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S REVISED BILL DID NOT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF LEAKS

    NYT: "In Place Of Straightforward Reporting Requirements Was New Language Giving The Nuclear Commission Two Years To Come Up With Its Own Regulations. "In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission 'shall consider'--not require--immediate public notification." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONS THAT THE REVISED BILL, LIKE THE ORIGINAL, REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC LEAKS AND THAT THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MADE THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS.

    National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]

    REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THE REVISED BILL ACTUALLY STRENGTHENED THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THAT "IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION" SHOULD MEAN 24 HOURS

    Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]

    Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]


    RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT THE REVISED BILL COULD ALLOW THE NRC TO DECIDE THAT EXISTING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WERE ALREADY SUFFICIENT

    NYT Implied That The Revised Bill Left Open Possibility That Revised Bill Allowed NRC To Adopt Task Force Finding That Reporting Requirements Were Already Sufficient. "[The revised bill also directed the NRC to take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks. By then, the task force had already concluded that 'existing reporting requirements for abnormal spills and leaks are at a level that is risk-informed and appropriate." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: THE REVISED BILL, LIKE ITS ORIGINAL VERSION, MANDATED NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]


    RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT EXELON AND NUCLEAR ENERGY WERE SATISFIED WITH TH BILL AND NO LONGER OPPOSED IT

    NYT: Exelon And NEI Were Satisfied With The Revised Bill And No Longer Opposed It. "In interviews last week, representatives of Exelon and the nuclear commission said they were satisfied with the revised bill. The Nuclear Energy Institute said it no longer opposed it but wanted additional changes." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: BOTH EXELON AND THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE DID NOT SUPPORT THE REVISED BILL AND SAID THEY BELIEVED IT WAS NOT NECESSARY

    CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]

    NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]

    NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]


    RHETORIC: NYT IMPLIED THAT OBAMA'S STAFF BELIEVED THE INDUSTRY'S VOLUNTARY EFFORTS WERE SUFFICIENT AND QUOTED A NUCLEAR SAFETY ADVOCATE AS SAYING THEY WERE UNTRUSTWORTHY

    NYT Quoted Nuclear Safety Advocate As Saying That Industry's Voluntary Guidelines Were Not Trustworthy. "Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama's efforts yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that 'it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.' 'But of course because it is all voluntary,' Mr. Lochbaum said, 'who's to say where things will be a few years from now?'" [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: NYT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT OBAMA SPECIFICALLY CRITICIZED THE INDUSTRY'S VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES AND VOWED TO PRESS AHEAD WITH THE BILL AFTER THOSE GUIDELINES WERE ANNOUNCED.

    Obama Called The Nuclear Industry's Self-Regulation Proposal Inadequate And "Vowed...To Press Ahead With A Bill To Mandate" Notification Of Unplanned Releases. "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) vowed Tuesday to press ahead with a bill to mandate reporting of unplanned radioactive releases, such as recent tritium leaks in Will County, saying a self-regulation initiative by the nuclear power industry is inadequate. 'While it's encouraging that the nuclear industry recognizes it has a special responsibility to keep communities informed of tritium leaks, the voluntary guidelines recommended by the Nuclear Energy Institute would still allow tritium leaks to occur without the public ever finding out about it,' he said. 'The nuclear industry already has a voluntary policy, and it hasn't worked,' he said. Obama's comments came in a prepared statement after the NEI presented a 'groundwater protection initiative' to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. It aims to improve the handling of inadvertent releases of radioactive material into groundwater at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants...David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Project, called the initiative 'a step in the right direction.' He said he was waiting to see more details to refine his impression. But he agreed that Obama's legislation would add teeth to the reporting requirement. 'What's to keep today's good initiative from going by the wayside?' he said. The Nuclear Release Notice Act is backed in the Senate by Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and in the House by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). It would require notification of federal, state and county officials when radioactive releases exceed federal limits or when two occur within a two-year span from the same source, process or equipment. And it would "impose real penalties on plants" that fail to make notification, Obama said." [Chicago Tribune, 3/10/06]

    Obama Said Exelon's Adjusted Notification Policy Was "Not Enough When It Comes To Nuclear Waste." "The releases came from a power generating station run by Exelon Nuclear. Exelon says that no public heath risk exists. But the company has changed its notification policy. The philosophy now, said company spokesman Craig Nesbit, 'is to go beyond legal and regulatory requirements.' But Obama said philosophy is not enough when it comes to nuclear waste. 'Notifying state and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law,' he said." [CQ, 3/3/06]

    RHETORIC: NYT REPORTED THAT OBAMA INTRODUCED THE BILL, AND HILLARY CLINTON SIGNED ON "LATER"

    NYT: Hillary Clinton Signed Onto The Bill "Later." "To flag systematic problems, it would also have required reporting of repeated accidental leaks that fell below those limits. Illinois' senior senator, Richard J. Durbin, a fellow Democrat, was a co-sponsor, and three other senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, later signed on. But Mr. Obama remained its primary champion." [New York Times, 2/3/08]

    REALITY: NYT NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT SHE SIGNED ON AFTER THE REVISIONS WERE MADE

    Hillary Clinton Cosponsored The Revised Bill After It Was Revised. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006]

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by downhill View Post
    Agreed he misrepresented his work on that bill, but the truth is...he rewrote it to get it passed as the Republicans in congress, who didn't/wouldn't favor a bill that could force a business to do the right thing, if it cost them money.

    That law does need rewrote and passed to require any leaks from a nuke plant to be reported, regardless the size of it and by the way, even though it doesn't excuse Obama, the bill died in congress.

    Instead of listening to talk radio and tv personalities, explain to us all that Obama/McCain/whatever did this or that, look up what's being written about them on their own blogs, wiki's etc. The exaggeration's being leveled against each other, usually get explained on them.


    Izzo, McCain's biggest contribution so far is theMcCain/Feingold law, passed after 7 years of haggling in congress and watered down by Republicans who sought to limit the contributions by unions/lawyers and not touch the soft money donated by corporations and large right wing PACs. Granted the PAC's would have also extended to left wing action commetties, but they aren't as many or as influential/wealthy as the right wing has in place.

    As it was originally introduced to congress, imho, would have helped level the playing field and took big business out of the picture of election our officials, it's now to watered down to be very effective.

    McCain isn't a bottom feeder. He's been busy the whole time he's been in congress. He's been very vocal about a lot of issues.

    My only complaint is that he's moved from the middle to the far right with the neocons in the last 3 and a half years.

    Neither candidate has a lengthy resume' or anything close to what the pundits would call 'qualifying' but yet it's what being forced down our throat as evidence that neither are qualified. It makes me wanna puke that this retarded behavior is perpetuated by the highest level of office....

    I was wondering his answer is all.....I mean if you're going to call a candidate out this BS you better have a laundry list of material to support your guy otherwise it's just stupid.

  19. #19
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,877
    Quote Originally Posted by downhill View Post

    Instead of listening to talk radio and tv personalities
    Got it this morning from NBCs site and that link...not radio or TV. Haven't even left home yet to hop in the Jeep which is the only place I listen to the radio...if ever (usually CD)

    His site just twists it in favor, I can't get past the basic facts up on the surface..."words..just words"..(to quote the annointed one ) but what's said to the people, gets greased by corporate money..and outcome is in favor of the big biz.

    Just rubs against his "ethics" bill, no? Which...has so many loopholes it's about as effective as a fishing net to carry water with..."can't buy dinners for campaign runners..but can throw one heck of a huge gala and provide dinner".
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  20. #20
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    How does it twist it in his favor if indeed the rewritten bill, requires leaks to be reported, which it does.

    The remark about radio and tv personalities wasn't directed at you specifically but Americans in general. It's easy to listen to someone who is of your own idealogy and trust what they say. In fact it's human nature.

    Limbaugh makes 35 million a year, doing just that.

    IMHO, a good majority of Americans like to think they are informed and really a good deal of them get their sources from cable TV or radio. Neither are noted for accuracy and even OTA goofs as well.

    Hell look at the original piece for that Obama story. It's the NYT! A paper not noted for getting it wrong very often. Yet they did and it's something you'll hear about Obama for a while now. You know...like the Kerry swift boat thing?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-18-08, 06:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •