Fox News Sucks

[TypeO]

The honeymoon with Obama is going to be over quicker than anyone would ever believe.

His "tax stimulus plan" is little more than 80 billion dollars going into the pockets of his

campaign contributors via government-mandated public works projects.

It's 1931 all over again.

Oh come on, now.

Everyone knows you can borrow your way out of debt!

It's a sound, proven economic principle.

[ally]

Oh come on, now.

Everyone knows you can borrow your way out of debt!

It's a sound, proven economic principle.

I happen to agree that government.. on it's own.. is not best the way to fix this problem but I question whether the private sector is capable of handling this all on it's own. How much damage are we willing to take ? Could the private sector have handled this without the bailouts ? I'm asking because I seriously don't know how much damage any of us are willing to take before we say..Uncle

[TypeO]

I happen to agree that government.. on it's own.. is not best the way to fix this problem but I question whether the private sector is capable of handling this all on it's own. How much damage are we willing to take ? Could the private sector have handled this without the bailouts ? I'm asking because I seriously don't know how much damage any of us are willing to take before we say..Uncle

Capitalism is a proven system based on sound economic principles.

It will eventually correct itself much like the stock market does from time to time.

The real problem is with

#1 - people trying to manipulate the economy (sub-prime lending) in order to generate increased revenues, and flat-out cheating/stealing.

#2 - the government trying to artificially manipulate the economy through bailouts.

If we'd quit fuckin' with it, it would come around on it's own.

Yes, it would be painful, but in the end our economy would turn around and remain strong.

I have more fear from the measures we are undertaking now - trying to ease immediate pain without consideration of how much more severe these same problems will be when they resurface down the road.

Edited January 27, 2009 by TypeO

[~tangerine~]

Maybe not you as an individual citizen.

But as for the Democratic party politicians, they most certainly wanted him to fail to allow them to regain power.

All of their positions were bankrolled on Bush failing in Iraq in order to prove they were right.

And not even just on issues as large as Iraq.

It was pretty much ANY issue.

Basically Bush faced 8 years of "getback" for the 2000 election.

Because Bush had a proven track record in Texas as a "uniter" and "working across the aisle," and made that central to his campaign, that became the Dems main target - to make sure he was NOT a uniter.

So it was more of "Oh well, if the country falls down into a fucking sewer, then we'll be in the optimal position to regain control of the country and implement the policies we favor."

Whether or not your theory that the Democratic party wanted Bush to fail is true, really means nothing. The fact of the matter remains that eight years of "Bush" Administration and "Bush" policies are the reason for "Bush" failiing. IF he was ever a uniter, he became a great divider under his very long, very destructive Presidency.

I hope i kept that short enough so you can't distort anything i said.

[jabe]

Hey,everything is cool.Obama was elected to save the fucking day,and that's what he is going to do.He's my president,he's your president.

Let Barack implement his experience as a community organizer and US senator as it relates to running the United States of America.

The "change"he espoused on many of his stump speeches might soon be upon us.

Timeout for now , gotta go listen to the Eagles, Peaceful Easy Feeling.

I'm sleeping sound tonight.

[TypeO]

Whether or not your theory that the Democratic party wanted Bush to fail is true, really means nothing. The fact of the matter remains that eight years of "Bush" Administration and "Bush" policies are the reason for "Bush" failiing. IF he was ever a uniter, he became a great divider under his very long, very destructive Presidency.

I hope i kept that short enough so you can't distort anything i said.

You can only be a uniter if the other side is willing to be united.

If the other side refuses to be united at all costs out of a grudge, why is that the "uniter's" failing?

BTW, what did I distort in the other post?

[wanna be drummer]

I happen to agree that government.. on it's own.. is not best the way to fix this problem but I question whether the private sector is capable of handling this all on it's own. How much damage are we willing to take ? Could the private sector have handled this without the bailouts ? I'm asking because I seriously don't know how much damage any of us are willing to take before we say..Uncle

A question to your question: Are the bailouts going to save this country or the economy in any way?

No

[Electrophile]

"Save" means completely correct all the mistakes, so no I don't think that's what will happen. Do I think they will help put us on the path to fixing them? Yes.

[wanna be drummer]

"Save" means completely correct all the mistakes, so no I don't think that's what will happen. Do I think they will help put us on the path to fixing them? Yes.

The economy goes through something like $16 trillion a year. $800 billion won't do shit (IMO), especially with the way the leaders of the economy are planning on spending it.

Edited January 28, 2009 by wanna be drummer

[ally]

A question to your question: Are the bailouts going to save this country or the economy in any way?

No

Actually, I'm only questioning whether or not we could actually endure the hardship that allowing the market to correct itself would bring. None of us were alive during the Great Depression and none of us have any real idea as to how hard things could really get. I'm not suggesting that the bailouts are the answer or allowing the market to correct itself is wrong. I'm suggesting that nobody knows and all the theory in the world will be worthless if we're having this conversation in a soup line

[wanna be drummer]

The market is the way it is because the government decided to step in, as it always does.

[ally]

The market is the way it is because the government decided to step in, as it always does.

There is a great joke out there about the difference between Theory and Reality but I'd get banned if I posted it

[~tangerine~]

You can only be a uniter if the other side is willing to be united.

If the other side refuses to be united at all costs out of a grudge, why is that the "uniter's" failing?

BTW, what did I distort in the other post?

How soon you forget. It was a long time ago, but i will tread lightly with you, since i know not to trust you, Mr. quote changer.

So anyway, the President ran the country and the President is responsible for his decisions. Nice try, but you can't blame his actions on anyone else. He not only divided our country, but he turned much of the (or should i say most)world against us. But you already know all this. Look at his approval rating upon leaving office. Says it all.

I tried, but couldn't resist posting this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20...d=news-col-blog

A Bush Legacy Bounce?

Will former President Bush's poll numbers ever bounce back? Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

When George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, took off from the Capitol in a Marine helicopter and soared over the site where President Barack Obama had been sworn in moments before, thousands of people joyously waved goodbye to a presidency that many consider the worst in modern history.

Of the scene, New Yorker editor David Remnick wrote:

"Marine One climbed and climbed--slowly, though like an old man getting up in the morning, and then, having reached sufficient altitude, the chopper flattened out and the former President, unsuccessful and unadored, sped off to Andrews Air Force Base and then connected on to Dallas, never to be quite forgotten."

Now that Bush is officially a part of history, the question of his legacy will be debated in earnest. Will Bush benefit -- as have most modern presidents -- from the dim light of history under which voters tend to forget the sharp edges of their former leaders and remember only the softer side? Or will he be excepted from this warming trend of public opinion due to events like the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina that could haunt his legacy-building for years to come?

"I think some passage of time will allow people to consider President Bush's efforts with less political emotion and more focus on what the results of his policies have been," said Terry Nelson, who served as national political director during the former president's 2004 reelection campaign. "As time passes, the views on his administration will also be less partisan. This happens with every president, and will happen with this one as well."

While that may well be true, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests Bush has a VERY high hill to climb.

Just one in three voters approved of how Bush had handled his job while 66 percent disapproved -- including a whopping 51 percent who "strongly" disapproved of how Bush did his job.

Bush's 33 percent job approval rating was slightly higher than the 29 percent he averaged during the final year of his term in the Post/ABC but far below the 51 percent approval rating he averaged during his entire presidency -- a number that soared in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001 but remained mired in lows 30s for much of the final years of his Administration.

This compares unfavorably to Post polling for past presidents on their way out the door. Bill Clinton had a 65 percent approval rating at the end of his term and averaged 57 percent for his eight years. George H.W. Bush left office (involuntarily) with a 56 percent approval rating and a career average of 63 percent. Ronald Reagan stood at 64 percent in the final Post poll and averaged 57 percent for his eight years in office. (A BIG thank you to Post polling director -- and all-around good guy -- Jon Cohen for these numbers.)

The early read-about regarding Bush's legacy also casts doubt on his ability to bounce back from his current job ratings. Asked how history would remember Bush's presidency, just 16 percent said either "outstanding" (4 percent) or "above average" (11 percent) while 58 percent said the Bush Administration would be remembered as "below average" (22 percent) or "poor" (36 percent). Twenty-six percent said he would be remembered as an "average" president.

Again, those legacy numbers lag well behind recent past presidents. Forty-seven percent of those polled in early January 2001 said that Bill Clinton would be remembered as an "outstanding" (15 percent) or "above average" (32 percent); roughly one in three (36 percent) said former President George H.W. Bush would be remembered as a "outstanding" (six percent) or "above average" (30 percent) president.

One possible benefit for Bush is that it's hard to imagine his numbers will sink much lower than where they stand today. And, judging from the past history, Bush is almost certain to see a rise in his numbers as his presidency moves further and further into the rear view mirror of voters.

Much will hinge on how Americans ultimately judge Bush's reaction to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent war in Iraq. The more favorably the war is seen in the long view of history, the better Bush's numbers (and legacy) will look. If in the final judgment the war is seen as a failure, it's hard to imagine Bush's numbers perking up in any significant way.

Fred Davis, a Republican media consultant who oversaw ad strategy for John McCain's presidential campaign, said he believed the former scenario would play out.

"Eventually Americans always only remember the good," said Davis. "He'll eventually be fine. He kept America safe, he set his vision and never wavered."

Jim Innocenzi, a partner in the Republican media firm Sandler-Innocenzi, was far less certain that Bush's legacy would benefit as time passes.

"Yes, America hasn't been attacked since 9/11 and we owe him a debt of gratitude for that," Innocenzi said of the former president. "But the fact remains, the terrible troika of the economy, Iraq and Katrina will be this man's lasting legacy for years to come."

By Chris Cillizza | January 21, 2009; 2:41 PM ET | Category: White House

Previous: Inauguration Day: "In the Moment"

[The Rover]

I agree with you (probably for the first time) that Fox News sucks! Can't agree on O'Reilly though. He sucks, too. If Fox news left the air, i doubt many would notice. Worst trash ever...

Agreed !

I'll just keeplistening to talk radio... who ? ? ? Not RL or SH, but Michael Savage.... Yeah Baby, that's right Michael Savage....

Edited January 28, 2009 by The Rover

[TypeO]

How soon you forget. It was a long time ago, but i will tread lightly with you, since i care so much about your opinion, Mr. quote changer.

Is this the type of thing you're referring to?

If so, uhhh, that's a form of sarcasm to make a point, not a serious attempt to distort what was actually said - it's why I usually draw attention to it with BOLD or colors like that.

So anyway, the President ran the country and the President is responsible for his decisions. Nice try, but you can't blame his actions on anyone else. He not only divided our country, but he turned much of the (or should i say most)world against us. But you already know all this. Look at his approval rating upon leaving office. Says it all.

Q: Why do liberals make such a big deal out of approval ratings?

A: They don't, unless said ratings support their agenda.

Approval Ratings only reflect people's perception of how well a President is performing his duties, not how well he is actually doing.

And we know how much people's perception is influenced by the media.

Regardless of how stridently liberals deny media bias, it is simple reality.

Our mainstream broadcast (ABC, NBC and CBS) and print media (NY/LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Atlanta Journal Constitution) all present the news with opinion.

News is news, editorial is editorial, and never the twain should meet in REPORTING.

Cable News introduced the mixing of News and editorial in reporting.

O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, Matthews - NONE of these are NEWS.

They are editorial/entertainment.

But when the mainstream news is reported with opinion worked into the reporting, that's a very serious problem.

Example: Early last year, during a noted downturn in the violence in Iraq, Al Qaeda struck with 2 separate suicide (homicide) bombings, one of which killed quite a few civilians and injured many more. (As a side note, one of the bombers was later revealed to be a young, severely mentally-challenged girl.)

Our local paper (a relative anomaly in being not blatantly biased), simply reported the story:

Suicide bomber kills XX, injures XX in Bahgdad market. (I don't remember exact numbers.)

However, one of the big papers had a somewhat subtle angle on the same story:

Despite Bush's claims of decreased violence, Suicide bomber kills XX, injures XX in Bahgdad market.

Sorry, but there's no defense for that.

That is perfectly acceptable for the Editorial page.

It is outrageously inappropriate for the Front page.

And the "approval rating" polls aren't much better:

"In your opinion, has President Bush completely failed or only partially failed?"

yes, ~tang~, I'm being sarcastic there.

So the significance of approval ratings are grossly overrated.

Many of the greatest Presidents in our history had low approval ratings.

I tried, but couldn't resist posting this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20...d=news-col-blog

Oh, here's the part where we post articles supporting our particular viewpoints!

Hmmmm... Despite all the caterwauling over Bush's many "failure's", seems the Obama administration is finding many of the "Bush Doctrine" policies weren't such a bad idea after all!

[reids]

Agreed !

I'll just keeplistening to talk radio... who ? ? ? Not RL or SH, but Michael Savage.... Yeah Baby, that's right Michael Savage....

Obama sounds like he's the favorite of Henry Kissinger, too.

check out Kissinger on CNBC's Squawk in the Street on youtube to see his ultimate plans for O and his global initiative... (reminds me of Palpatine in Star Wars)...

R

Edited January 28, 2009 by reids

[cryingbluerain]

I hope I'm wrong but methinks we could be sitting around a year or two from now longing for the "good old days" of the Bush admin..

[TypeO]

This whole "spend our way to solvency" mentality is enough to make your head asplode.

If spending almost a trillion dollars will just fix our economy, why not go ahead and spend 10 trillion and we'll be set for life?

This goes against the most basic principles of economics.

"You can't borrow your way out of debt."

And bring on the accusations of partisanship, but this "stimulus" package is looking more and more like a "payoff" package for all the support Obama received.

Everyone was appalled at a $150,000 wardrobe budget, but we weren't supposed to blink at a campaign that raised two-thirds of a BILLION dollars?

Is anyone so naive as to believe that kind of money comes "no strings attached"?

Is anyone so naive as to believe that was all school teachers and union workers sending in their $25 - $200 each?

Or is it more likely that a huge portion of that was generated by huge contributors who simply sent their millions and millions in contributions in $200 sums so as to bypass campaign contribution tracking?

Barely 1/3 of the stimulus money will be used before 2010 - how does that "jumpstart" the economy?

Building infrastructure is hardly immediate either - major construction projects like bridges and whatnot take months if not years to kick off, even if they're "ready."

Even construction starting tomorrow wouldn't have effect on the economy for months.

But that's because DemocRats believe they can spend our money for us better than we can spend it ourselves.

Tax cuts are consistently proven to stimulate spending - REAL spending by consumers, not government spending to try to artificially pump up the economy.

They're concerned we'll save the money instead of spend it.

"AND WE SURE CAN'T HAVE THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS SAVING MONEY, NOW CAN WE???"

Or we'll pay off debts with the extra money.

That has mistake written all over it.

Who's more likely to make consumer purchases – someone with debts that are becoming distressing, or someone who's managed to get their debt back under control?

But of course, that would be acknowledging that the "Bush Tax cuts" were a good idea, and that Republican ideology of taxpayers keeping more of their own money to put back into the economy in legitimate consumerism is best for righting the seriously lurching vessel.

No, we could never admit something like that.

Liberals and DemocRats have long pooh-poohed the (proven, btw) concept of "trickle-down economics", yet they turn around and expect us to buy into Obama's "trickle-up" model?

At least that was his campaign rhetoric.

Now that he's in charge, it's not "the people at the base of the economy will get more money" but rather "the people at the base of the economy will have more money spent on them."

brb, getting a loan to pay off my mortgage. HURRAY, house will be paid for! wait, wut?

[wanna be drummer]

This whole "spend our way to solvency" mentality is enough to make your head asplode.

If spending almost a trillion dollars will just fix our economy, why not go ahead and spend 10 trillion and we'll be set for life?

This goes against the most basic principles of economics.

"You can't borrow your way out of debt."

As my economics professor said on Monday: "The Ultra-Right do not entirely understand the basics of economics, while the Left just doesn't comprehend any of the simplest concepts whatsoever."

If we wanted out of this mess, we should've voted an Economics expert...which neither of the two choices were at all

Edited January 28, 2009 by wanna be drummer

[ally]

As my economics professor said on Monday: "The Ultra-Right do not entirely understand the basics of economics, while the Left just doesn't comprehend any of the simplest concepts whatsoever."

If we wanted out of this mess, we should've voted an Economics expert...which neither of the two choices were at all

Agreed , but the political will was all geared to supposed change and supported by the institutions that are now recieving bailout dollars.

[wanna be drummer]

Agreed , but the political will was all geared to supposed change and supported by the institutions that are now recieving bailout dollars.

And misusing them

[zeplinger]

Fox News looks really bad now that Obama is President. They look whiny, mean spirited, and borderline racist. Greta and Geraldo are ok--they do mostly human interest and crime stories.

[TypeO]

As my economics professor said on Monday: "The Ultra-Right do not entirely understand the basics of economics, while the Left just doesn't comprehend any of the simplest concepts whatsoever."

If we wanted out of this mess, we should've voted an Economics expert...which neither of the two choices were at all

yep.

And McCain torpedoed Romney (who would have been an EXCELLENT choice) in SC by throwing all his people to Huckabee. McCain didn't need SC, he just needed Romney NOT to win SC.

Romney would have been a formiddable opponent when the economy took a dive, whereas with McCain it just played right into Obama's court.

As soon as the campaign shifted from the war to the economy, it was over.

McCain then lost what little impact he could bring to the campaign.

[TypeO]

whiny, mean spirited, and borderline racist.

That's pretty much the template for anyone who's not onboard the O-train.

Under Bush, opposition was the new patriotism.

Under Obama, opposition is the new racism.

[~tangerine~]

Is this the type of thing you're referring to?

If so, uhhh, that's a form of sarcasm to make a point, not a serious attempt to distort what was actually said - it's why I usually draw attention to it with BOLD or colors like that.

Q: Why do liberals make such a big deal out of approval ratings?

A: They don't, unless said ratings support their agenda.

Approval Ratings only reflect people's perception of how well a President is performing his duties, not how well he is actually doing.

And we know how much people's perception is influenced by the media.

Regardless of how stridently liberals deny media bias, it is simple reality.

Our mainstream broadcast (ABC, NBC and CBS) and print media (NY/LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Atlanta Journal Constitution) all present the news with opinion.

News is news, editorial is editorial, and never the twain should meet in REPORTING.

Cable News introduced the mixing of News and editorial in reporting.

O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, Matthews - NONE of these are NEWS.

They are editorial/entertainment.

But when the mainstream news is reported with opinion worked into the reporting, that's a very serious problem.

So the significance of approval ratings are grossly overrated.

I don't think the American perception of our Economy, our ongoing and ongoing and ongoing War, our rate of Unemployment, Uninsured, poorly Educated...Environmental concerns... the way the rest of the World views us...to name a few... is misconception. Bush did a lousy job (to put it nicely) and now we are paying dearly for it. I don't understand why you think it's all Liberals giving their opinion in those polls. It's obvious by the very low rating that plenty of Conservatives have spoken as well.

As for people being unable to make their own decisions, that may be true of the people you know. I know plenty of people who formulate their own opinions based on all the information and their own mind. If you are saying the media tells people what to think, the Conservatives are just as brain washed as the Liberals... imo, much more.

As for your fun and games with quoting people with your own words, it's something a douchbag does. I'm not the only person to call you on it. It's the same a lying.