Rachel Maddow just said ~= "JMs temperment is an issue cuz he said we are all Georgians, which means lets treat Georgia like its Nebraska and lets go bomb Moscow. To have that sort of hair trigger reaction (which she just made up in her own head btw) on a very sensitive issue, temperment should be issue"

Good thread.

We needed a good place to post our stuff about Pat Buchanan, Mike Murphy, Joe Scarborough, etc.

I don't rail against Alan Combs, Juan Williams, Shep Smith, Mara Liason.

I don't rail against Alan Combs, Juan Williams, Shep Smith, Mara Liason.

Why would you hate on moderates?

^ a 2 knee slapper

Per usual for MSNBC, Chris Mathews said the Condi and Gen Powell appointments were "SHOWCASE" appointments.

It shouldn't surprise me (but it does) to see someone that has a show on ??? times a day denegrate apptments such as these as 'showcase' cuz Condi and Powell don't have the same views as him.

Really embarrassing, imo.

It looks like this thread will also have you watching MSNBC more often to get material.

Will you be watching Countdown in 15 minutes?

Should be a good one.

Per usual for MSNBC, Chris Mathews said the Condi and Gen Powell appointments were "SHOWCASE" appointments.

It shouldn't surprise me (but it does) to see someone that has a show on ??? times a day denegrate apptments such as these as 'showcase' cuz Condi and Powell don't have the same views as him.

Really embarrassing, imo.

Matthews just apologized for how that was phrased, fwiw.

He said that he meant "showcase" in a good way, as in "high level" and certainly didn't intend to equate it with "token".

You watchin', Tahoe?

Michael Moore is coming up soon.

Did you hear that Pat Robertson called Obama's speech "the greatest convention speech ever"?

I was on, off and back on the phone, but I switched to Billy Boy and Tiges for my multi-receiver box.

Sorry Sportscaster guy and Flint guy.

I was on, off and back on the phone, but I switched to Billy Boy and Tiges for my multi-receiver box.

Sorry Sportscaster guy and Flint guy.

No worries, I'll youtube it for you tomorrow.

Oh thanks sooooo much. You never know, MM might go off on KO like he did Wolf one of these times. Or is MM and KO an item?

You won't find me defending Matthews at all, I don't care for him at all.

CNN for me, with the occasional Olbermann for the "yeah, yeah!!" entertainment.

You watchin', Tahoe?

Michael Moore is coming up soon.

Did you hear that Pat Robertson called Obama's speech "the greatest convention speech ever"?
I'm pretty sure you meant Pat Buchanan.

Yep, my bad.

Sort of a Bidenistic Freudian slip.

LOL...the republicans were sarcastic and belittling.

Talk about whinning. They just look beside themselves trying to find something negative to say. Really pretty funny, imo.

LOL @ Brokaw. "Repubs, Dems and Indis deserve to know as much as we can about her"

Where were you when it was BO, Tom?

LOL...the republicans were sarcastic and belittling.

Talk about whinning. They just look beside themselves trying to find something negative to say. Really pretty funny, imo.

I'm not sure what you want them to say. those speeches were nasty and, quite frankly, stupid for anyone with any clue about the way bush has governed. Its not whining, its a description of their speeches. On the other you were whining when you complained that questions about experience = sexism.

I personally would have pointed out how cynical it is to play 'pass the down's syndrome baby around' - all of the palins + cindy mccain. why not just pass the baby through the rest of the crowd.

anyways, karl rove is counting on your vote. he knows how you morons eat up culture attacks even when they come from "east coast elitests" like romney and giuliani

I'm not sure what you want them to say. those speeches were nasty and, quite frankly, stupid for anyone with any clue about the way bush has governed. Its not whining, its a description of their speeches. On the other you were whining when you complained that questions about experience = sexism.

I personally would have pointed out how cynical it is to play 'pass the down's syndrome baby around' - all of the palins + cindy mccain. why not just pass the baby through the rest of the crowd.

anyways, karl rove is counting on your vote. he knows how you morons eat up culture attacks even when they come from "east coast elitests" like romney and giuliani

You certainly have lots of energy.

The baby thing was outrageous.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26430130/


Attacks, praise stretch truth
By JIM KUHNHENN
updated 11:44 p.m. ET, Wed., Sept. 3, 2008

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.

Associated Press Writer Jim Drinkard in Washington contributed to this report.

The baby thing was loving, imo. The entire family is always together. I haven't seen the apart EVER. Its only been a week, but thats my take.

So was the baby supposed to sit by himself? Sarahs husband was backstage with SP so Ms McCain held the baby and as soon as he got the family seats he took his son. Whats wrong with that? Then when it was time to wave hello to everyone, his daughter held the baby.

Whats the deal here? They love their baby and are proud parents.

They passed the baby around like a prop.

Maybe the baby should have been, I don't know, sleeping?

One could certainly question those parenting skills, right there.

I think the same thing when I see a baby at a sporting event at 11 pm, too.

It's selfish.

Ok, then you must have had the same feelings when BO's daughter said..."Hi daddy" They must have rehearsed that line.

Oh and the "I love you daddy" Oh yea, that was such a prop.

And that was late too.

Terrible parents those Obamas.

His daughters aren't babies.

And you know the difference.

I had 2 friends that had babies at the same time. One wouldn't take their baby anywhere. My other buddy and his wife brought their newborn to racquetball tournies, etc.

They both turned out fine. I think once in a blue moon, say if you are nominated to become the Vice Prez of the US, you might be able to break the rules.

Yeah, I thought the baby thing was cute. I don't know if I'd want anything to ever touch Cindy McCain (she just looks evil to me) but its the producers who focus on the babies. I didn't think they were over the top and shoving the kid in front of the camera all the time.

I wouldn't agree that I think the family is always together. I think there is a growing source of evidence against that one.

If there is a public appearence the ENTIRE family is together. All of them.

No shit, why wouldn't they be? If they're really trying to push family values that would be an obvious requirement...

No shit, why wouldn't they be? If they're really trying to push family values that would be an obvious requirement...

Well you and Glen need to go work this thing out cuz he doesn't think the baby should be out.

And you keep talking about family values pertaining to Repubs, and imo, you don't know shit about much of anything. You are just reading what someone said about what someone else said, about some link to some blog.

If there is a public appearence the ENTIRE family is together. All of them.

It's all good as long as they don't say "Hi Daddy", right?

^Uh oh.

re: #31

It's all good as long as they don't say "Hi Daddy", right?

I didn't start it.

Deal with it.

And you keep talking about family values pertaining to Repubs, and imo, you don't know shit about much of anything. You are just reading what someone said about what someone else said, about some link to some blog.

You called me an elitist a while back.

LOL. OK Bill.

I like how "blog" is being transformed into a negative word by the neocons, just like "liberal".

I'm sure there aren't any neocon blogs out there, or anything.

I like how "blog" is being transformed into a negative word by the neocons, just like "liberal".

I'm sure there aren't any neocon blogs out there, or anything.

Agree on the blog part. But DK and some of those others have made that work easy.

On the liberal thing...for years now (and still today) when any Conservative goes on CNN or MSNBC he/she is immediately described as a "Conservative" So whats good for the gooese... comes to mind.

I didn't start it.

Deal with it.
Deal with what, hypocrisy? You speak highly of the family being present for Palin and in the same breath criticize Obama's family for being there.

Organize your thoughts.

Deal with what, hypocrisy? You speak highly of the family being present for Palin and in the same breath criticize Obama's family for being there.

Organize your thoughts.

Comprehending posts must not be working to well for you today.

I never said anything about Palins family till it was raised by Glenn. And I posted about BO's family to be 'fair and balanced'

Yeah, I thought the baby thing was cute. I don't know if I'd want anything to ever touch Cindy McCain (she just looks evil to me)
Cindy's looked hotter than I've seen her look in awhile. The cynic in me thinks that Palin's caused her to step up her game.

Losing the pink cast = hott

That cast just didn't 'go' with her dress the other day.

I understand that Glenn brought it up. My point had nothing to do with who brought it up. I'm saying that you give your guys points for the very thing you are knocking the other guys for.

It's not a complex point dude.

YEAH FAMILY = PALIN
BOO FAMILY = OBAMA
Hypocritical stance = Tahoe

^ LOL

I like how "blog" is being transformed into a negative word by the neocons, just like "liberal".

I'm sure there aren't any neocon blogs out there, or anything.

I see a lot of conservatives cozying up to the blogosphere as part of their general "mainstream media is liberal and evil" leanings.

A lot of the conservative bloggers are pretty decent and as a whole I think they tend to be less assclownish than your typical fox news fare.

I think there are prolly some dispicable(sp?) right wing blogs. I choose to ignore both.

I made it a point never to read the Daily Dump carried by a certain site I know.

I like how "blog" is being transformed into a negative word by the neocons, just like "liberal".

I'm sure there aren't any neocon blogs out there, or anything.

I think where the 'neocons' (as you call them) have been somewhat sucessful is because some of the content on DK and then the Dems did a debate sponsored by them, or partially sponsored by them.

^ iirc

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/04/1347737.aspx

Nothing peculiar about the timing at all.

Actually, Troopergate's been a near-Kwame level event in Alaska all summer. It's one of many reasons why no one thought Palin was gonna get the VP nod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal

For some reason when it comes out what a douche bag that guy is, it prolly won't matter. I guess he threatened to kill her dad and taze their son. I don't know. I wasn't there.

But much like other teflon candidates, Palin might be one of those. Bill Clinton or BO type of candidates.

Especially with the poll I posted that 51% think the media is after her.

The trooper himself, Wooten, is a dipshit. But, the vast majority of the complaints against him are domestic disputes centering around the divorce from Palin's sister. ~20 charges were dismissed as bogus or not proved. These complaints weren't:

1) Tasering his step-son. The 10 year old wanted to know what it felt like to be tased and dipshit dad obliged, in front of witnesses. My dad gave me a smoke at 7 years old because I asked. Some people would argue that's shitty parenting, but I never had the urge to take a smoke since.

2) Shooting a moose without a permit. His wife had the permit and he shot it in his wife's name, after his wife balked at shooting the moose herself when it came time to pull the trigger. This is a minor violation, at worst.

3) Calling his wife and telling her, in the midst of divorce proceedings, that he'd kill her dad if he hired a lawyer. Families say all kinds of shit when going through a divorce -- I know this all too well. Divorce among cops is high. Wooten's an Air Force veteran who's been divorced four times now.

4) He had a beer in his police car once. He wasn't drunk, AFAICT.

And of course, Wooten isn't who got fired. No, it was the public service commissioner that Palin appointed upon becoming governor of Alaska.

If the accusations are true, the commish was fired for managing within the law, not intervening in a case that was already investigated and closed a year before he was ever on the scene. Once Palin became governor, it's alleged that she was looking to get rid of Wooten, and pissed that the commishr wasn't going to do her dirty work and incur the wrath of the police union and lawsuits. As part of the divorce, the judge commented that the Wooten's persecution by the family was puzzling and wasn't in the best interests of the child, so Wooten had a legal leg to stand on if anyone fired him over this.

As the problem escalated, the commish kept emails and has damning phone calls and had forced Palin to recant statements she made to the press. Things were coming to a head...

...and then Palin was made VP candidate a week later, in a surprise to all, as Troopergate was building into Kwame-gate without the sex.

Glenn,

Please change Mxy's location to "Wasilla, Alaska".

Especially with the poll I posted that 51% think the media is after her.
People like to say they hate the media, but they suck it up because that's all they have or all they want to deal with.

AFAICT, there's no intent for her to engage the media AT ALL. The media will crucify her if that's for real, and rightly so.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html

According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, the American people don't care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. According to Wallace -- in an appearance I did with her this morning on Joe Scarborough's show -- the American people will learn all they need to know (and all they deserve to know) from Palin's scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads. Here's the exchange:According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, the American people don't care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. According to Wallace -- in an appearance I did with her this morning on Joe Scarborough's show -- the American people will learn all they need to know (and all they deserve to know) from Palin's scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads.

Here's a couple major Republican news pundits beating up on Palin when they thought they weren't being broadcast on MSNBC: Dq4sOM4tpno
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/transcript_of_noonanmurphygate.php

So, after McCain's speech last night, Chris Matthews (a douche, btw), says that he expects that McCain will be ahead of Obama when the next poll results are released.

I guess we'll see.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sent out a fundraising solicitation today that charged that "the Obama/Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain."

I asked spokespeople of the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee just which "Obama/Biden Democrats" they're referring to.

The response I got was that Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski erroneously attacked Palin as a supporter of Pat Buchanan.

That's it. That's the evidence.


So she can't answer any questions from the media because of smears like this? keep in mind that buchanan himself said she was a supporter of his. this women is more of a sham than even gwb was. there is absolutely no substance there.

So, after McCain's speech last night, Chris Matthews (a douche, btw), says that he expects that McCain will be ahead of Obama when the next poll results are released.

I guess we'll see.

What gets me about MSNBC, or maybe I should just say Matthews in this case, is that he seems to always have to have some description of what happened in some surreal manner. Like we need it explained to us in some grandiose way cuz we are just plebians and he is the big philosopher above or something.

I think he's a douche too, you won't see me defending him.

I think he's a douche too, you won't see me defending him.

Which is why we both like FoxNews huh? Cuz they just report and let us decide. :)

Wrong. He may be a douche, but he doesn't lie enough to be on Fox News.

moved to LOL at Palin

What gets me about MSNBC, or maybe I should just say Matthews in this case, is that he seems to always have to have some description of what happened in some surreal manner. Like we need it explained to us in some grandiose way cuz we are just plebians and he is the big philosopher above or something.
He's just an old school kinda guy.
jE96K01YO24

LOL @ MSNBC or NBC using 'America' on any of the names of their programs. "Football night in America" OMG! alsoj/k

MSNBC: Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews won't anchor politics

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Monday, September 8th 2008, 9:06 AM
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/09/09/amd_kethchris.jpg Getty Keith Olbermann (l.) and Chris Matthews


MSNBC (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/MSNBC+Interactive+News+LLC) said Sunday it is replacing Keith Olbermann (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Keith+Olbermann) and Chris Matthews (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Chris+Matthews) as co-anchors of political night coverage with David Gregory (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/David+Gregory), and will use the two newsmen as commentators.
The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/NBC+Universal+Inc.). Throughout the primaries and summer, MSNBC argued that Olbermann and Matthews could serve as dispassionate anchors on political news nights and that viewers would accept them in that role, but things fell apart during the conventions.
Gregory, the veteran Washington (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Washington) hand, will anchor MSNBC's coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates and election night, said Jeremy Gaines (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jeremy+Gaines), network spokesman. The change was first reported by The New York Times (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/The+New+York+Times+Company).
The tipping point appears to have come during the Republican convention (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Republican+National+Convention) when Olbermann, after the network aired a Sept. 11-themed video prepared by the Republicans, said that MSNBC should not have shown it.

That's smart and good news.

Gotta keep that distinction clear as can be.

Fox News should take a lesson from this.

I'm a lil surprised at that actually.

That's smart and good news.

Gotta keep that distinction clear as can be.

Fox News should take a lesson from this.

And fire who?

They don't need to fire anyone.

They need to foster the distinction between "news" and "opinion/commentary".

The main guy is Brit Hume for all the major stuff. He brings Charles K, Mort, Mara, Juan, Kristol along with him for a panel.

Thats respectable, IMO. I wouldn't change a thing there.

Britt and Co can't stay on all night, so then Sean and Alan or Greta takes over after the big stuff.

I don't see a big problem with that, but thats just me.

The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/NBC+Universal+Inc.). Throughout the primaries and summer, MSNBC argued that Olbermann and Matthews could serve as dispassionate anchors on political news nights and that viewers would accept them in that role, but that was stupidly incorrect and obviously wrong from the start to everyone but the 3 guys in charge of the decision and of course didn't work out from the start let alone the spludge-fest known as the national political conventions.

Fixed.

I didn't know there was tension between the peeps at MSNBC.


And, news from the New York Post's Page Six (as reported (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/27/keith-olbermann-trying-banish-tom-brokaw-msnbc) by my colleague P.J. Gladnick) that Olbermann is trying to get long-time NBC "Nightly News" host Tom Brokaw banned from MSNBC adds more fuel to this looming firestorm.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/26/keith-olbermann-caught-dissing-joe-scarborough-open-mic

Brokaw was just awful on Meet the Press this week.

I like the guy, but he was confused, stuttering, losing his train of thought, etc.

It seemed like Biden was getting pissed at him because he couldn't keep things straight.

"newsbusters"?

lol

And Olbermann and Scarborough going toe to toe is nothing new, they are on polar opposites of the ideological spectrum.

The bickering (which I think is entertaining and exactly what they are going for on MSNBC, but would be out of line if it were to happen on NBC) comes with being "fair and balanced" I suppose. If everyone agrees, there is no reason to argue.

I was just reading how MSNBC got spanked by Fox during the coverage of the conventions.

Obviously, I like FoxNews, but damn, either CNN or MSNBC needs to get their shit together so we don't end up with one fucking source to cover political events. I know its not that bad, but don't want it to get there either.

"newsbusters"?

lol

And Olbermann and Scarborough going toe to toe is nothing new, they are on polar opposites of the ideological spectrum.

The bickering (which I think is entertaining and exactly what they are going for on MSNBC, but would be out of line if it were to happen on NBC) comes with being "fair and balanced" I suppose. If everyone agrees, there is no reason to argue.

Its the first time I've ever been to Newsbusters. Never heard of them. I just googled Olby and Matthews and they were on the first page.

btw...Scarborough is about as moderate a Republican you can find, imo, next to McCain.

I'd be shocked if Fox didn't win all of the political TV ratings.

When you have all the conservatives watching one source and the liberals watching 10 of them (MSNBC, the networks, CNN, PBS, etc.), they damn well better win.

btw...Scarborough is about as moderate a Republican you can find, imo, next to McCain.

You're right, I may have overstated that.

Prolly true = #78

In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of “Hardball,” began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair’s “SportsCenter”-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened

I'm fine with them anchoring, but they should have numerous other analysts to turn to (like CNN does) from both sides.

That's why I usually watch CNN for coverage of events (because you'll hear all sides). Also the hosts rarely interject their opinion (Wolf and/or Anderson).

re: #81

If they had Olbermann and Matthews anchoring on NBC, then I could see the O'Reilly example making sense.

MSNBC is not NBC.

Fox News doesn't have another channel to put their "commentators" on (seperate from their "news" coverage) so that is where the lines are blurred, IMO.

re: #81

If they had Olbermann and Matthews anchoring on NBC, then I could see the O'Reilly example making sense.

MSNBC is not NBC.

Fox News doesn't have another channel to put their "commentators" on (seperate from their "news" coverage) so that is where the lines are blurred, IMO.

Ok, its taking me a while but that point is begining to sink in.

Ok this is it for me...for today.

iYYKHug-cfE&feature

Rendell is an odd duck, IMO.

There's obviously some sour grapes here because he's very tight with Bill/Hillary, but it's noteworthy to mention that he wasn't so offended that he couldn't endorse Obama (which he has done).

And I love the "Olbermann Watch" (and I bet he does too).

MSNBC still doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. The fact that, as a second class citizen to NBC, it's in the same circles as Fox and CNN and is an online powerhouse, speaks a lot as to potential. But moves like this are just jarring.

Joe Scarborough was one of the most conservative members of Congress. He has mellowed out since going on tv, but he has always been very conservative. I think the Iraq war has resulted in a midlife repentance. Nonetheless, he never skips an opportunity to genuflect to the alter of reagan.




Scarborough was regarded as a reliable conservative, receiving a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.[5]. He signed the Contract with America, and was part of the 1994 Republican takeover of the House led by Newt Gingrich. Scarborough served on the Armed Services, Judiciary, Government Reform, and Education committees. In 1998, he was named Chairman of the Civil Service Committee.

Scarborough was one of a group of about 40 GOP freshmen legislators who dubbed themselves the "New Federalists" after the Federalist Papers. Scarborough was elected Political Director of the incoming legislators. The New Federalists called for sweeping cuts in the U.S. government, including plans to "privatize, localize, consolidate, [or] eliminate"[6] the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Development, but were largely unsuccessful in their goals. Gingrich tapped Scarborough to head a Republican task force on education, and Scarborough declared, "Our goal is to get as much money, power and authority out of Washington and get as much money, power and authority into the classroom as possible."[2]

Scarborough supported a number of pro-life positions while in Congress including legislation that made it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of other crimes.

Scarborough sponsored a bill to force the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations after a four-year transition[6] and voted to make the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "self-sufficient"[7] by eliminating federal funding. He also voted for the "Medicare Preservation act of 1995,"[8] which cut the projected growth Medicare by $270 billion over ten years, and against the "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996"[9] which raised the minimum wage to $5.15. Scarborough had a conservative voting record on economic, social, and foreign policy issues, but was seen as moderate on environmental issues and human rights causes (including closing the School of the Americas and Lori Berenson).[2]

Joe Scarborough was one of the most conservative members of Congress. He has mellowed out since going on tv, but he has always been very conservative. I think the Iraq war has resulted in a midlife repentance. Nonetheless, he never skips an opportunity to genuflect to the alter of reagan. j/khereZanny


http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/4914/bgfdy2.jpg

bush flips me the bird every day he is in office. why should today be any different? at least, i can take solace that i did everything i could to keep him out of office unlike the dipshits who voted for him.

I saw 1 question of the recently fired Olby wan kenobi inteviewing BO. LOL. He went through this litany of bullshit, then said, Why are candidates reluctant to use the word Lie?

LMAO

Now theres some journalism for ya.

BO actually looked uncomfortable to me. Its like the 3 or so peeps watching MSNBC (me being one at the time) knew he was getting softball after softball after softball.

I've been youtubing Olby wan lately cuz I didn't know there was so much angst going on over there. And it only confirmed what I thought of him, but I guess even moreso.

Olberman wasn't fired.

I see what you're trying to do there.

Contessa Brewer is smokin', btw.

She doesn't have that "trailer park" hotness that the Fox Snooze gals have.

She's legit.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/weissfoto/2605636984/

bump, just because they are so laughable.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/193/maddowhotslut1sr4.jpg

It's great to see Wil Wheaton back on TV.

Joe Scarborough casually drops f-bomb at :06 ... doesn't realize it until 1:00. Hilarity and hijinks ensue.

DJIGP4je2hA

Despite being hosted by a sometimes unreasonable conservative, Morning Joe is a great show, IMO.

Willie is hilarious.

Fair and balanced, baby.

Contessa Brewer

LMAO

I'd hit it.

Erin Burnett is yummy too.

I'd hit it too, as long she couldn't talk.

Holy shit...I thought I'd check in to see what MSNBC is like these days....Holy Shit! OMFG! Rachel Maddow...Holy shit!

I thought Fox and Friends were bad...

at least they are on at 3am or some shit.

Its no wonder MSNBC is in the shitter.

That network is fuctashitatude

I'm still watching...holy shit!

LOL!

Which of these top story headlines from msnbc.com does not fit with the others?

A. British hostages' bodies recovered in Iraq

B. Hawaiians eye N. Korea missile plan

C. NYT reporter escapes from Taliban captivity

D. Obama, daughters snack on frozen custard

I'll go with "C"--I'm sick and tired of these reporters that go over to weird, fucked up, unstable, dangerous places to take pictures and get a story so they can win a Pulitzer, and then when they end up with their asses in a sling everyone has a pity party for them.
So, they get out, act like they've been in the Hanoi Hilton for 30 years, appear on the Today show, write a book, make a zillion bucks, and never even have to pick their own noses again.
C--definitely C.

MSNBC fabricating entertainment again. They reported that some guy brouht a gun to the Health Care march and showed a closeup of the gun. Unfortunately is was of that guy that brought a gun to some pro BO march. <--I doubt that was covered on y'alls source for news.

You are correct I did not hear that. Link please.

I think I will actually go see if I can find that. It was on Billy O the other night. They showed that one hottie over there...candice? doing a story, ripping the Health Care march or whatever its called. Then he showed the the footage side by side with the guy at the some pro BO march.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/08/18/msnbc-no-mention-black-gun-owner-among-racist-protesters

I'm not getting what's wrong here. They talked about how some people show up with guns that may have racial motivations. Just because the gun they showed was on a black man (clearly without racial motivations), doesn't mean they fabricated anything. As long as there are still white people there that have similar weapons, what difference does it make?

This isn't the same as misreporting facts (like the size of the crowd we talked about). It's simply making use of the footage they have. How would it have been any better to capture a white man with a gun? Then you're accusing him of racism, which isn't right.

They said when you add guns to the mix with people who are racist, it can compound the entire affair. I didn't see where they specifically said the people with guns are also racist.

I'm not getting what's wrong here. They talked about how some people show up with guns that may have racial motivations. Just because the gun they showed was on a black man (clearly without racial motivations), doesn't mean they fabricated anything. As long as there are still white people there that have similar weapons, what difference does it make?

This isn't the same as misreporting facts (like the size of the crowd we talked about). It's simply making use of the footage they have. How would it have been any better to capture a white man with a gun? Then you're accusing him of racism, which isn't right.

They said when you add guns to the mix with people who are racist, it can compound the entire affair. I didn't see where they specifically said the people with guns are also racist.

I'm out.

Suppose someone did a story on WTFDetroit.com and said there are some idiot posters on here. If they showed a screen shot of a thread that had a good poster with their name blocked out, is that wrong?

It is the mindset of the left though. Just keep screaming something over and over and then it becomes fact to them. It's their mindset.

Again, the liberal brain disease: words have no meaning except what I say they have. Nothing is true unless I say it is. If I want it bad enough, I can make it a reality. If I disagree with you, I can make you irrelevant.

It is the mindset of Tahoe. Just keep screaming something over and over and then it becomes fact to him. It's his mindset.

Um, that's the right buddy.


It is the mindset of the left though. Just keep screaming something over and over and then it becomes fact to them. It's their mindset.

ISWHTTDT

Um, that's the right buddy.

No U.

ISWHTTDT

IWS

YWBID

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showpost.php?p=337131&postcount=1247

Yeah, some of these drive me crazy.

It was funny when they were about Glan's man crushes on Flip Murray/Earl Watson. I'm done with this shit now though. I ignore posts with those in it now.

IBSSTFEW

I can't confirm this cuz I don't watch the cesspools, but MSNBC and CNN spent many segments spewing their lies about Rushie poo and about 30 seconds saying the quotes were unconfirmed.

State run media.

If you're looking for the real Russian propaganda network and some decent eye candy, check out the Russia Today broadcasts.

Chris Mathews calls Obama's detractors 'crackers'

So I want to see what the other side is saying about the repeal of HC, (since FoxNews just lies) and what are the topics I've seen so far on Hardball? Sarah Palin! That is so hilarious. The lefts "NEWS" is a disgrace. Sorry, I mean no disrespect.

Thing is, the "Repeal" isn't really news. Just posturing. It's generally understood that it will go nowhere and is just for show.

The thing is that HC reform, or ObamaCare IS huge. Its what Nanci hangs her bra on. It's a huge accomplishment in the lefts eyes. So the repeal of it in the house and the Dems only having a small small majority in the Senate makes it news. Certainly a helluva lot more newsworthy than the VP candidate of the LOSING ticket in a past election.

No, it doesn't.

Especially Vin, since the Dems are already backing down and saying "Lets just work in a bipartisan way to make the bill better. Lets change it"

LMMFAO at these guys. Maybe if they would have some input from the Repubs in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Its news.

They said "let's change it" while they were passing it. Remember "passing it is the important part, large bills like this always change over time".

Also, GTFO with the "if they would have gotten Republican input upfront." Even you know the Pubs were having none of that and that O bent over backwards to try and get them to responsibly contribute.

Not news, just PR.

Just watch this thing going forward Vinny. Its news.

LOL now Lawrence O'Donnell has Palin on. edit... not on the show. Oh no, just the topic to keep the sheep happy.

These guys are the biggest joke. Seriously a joke.

LMAO... Now they have Roseanne Barr on to talk about Sarah Palin.

OMFG! Don't ever change MSNBC.

They said "let's change it" while they were passing it. Remember "passing it is the important part, large bills like this always change over time".

Also, GTFO with the "if they would have gotten Republican input upfront." Even you know the Pubs were having none of that and that O bent over backwards to try and get them to responsibly contribute.

Not news, just PR.

I"m just in a laughing mood tonight cuz this is funny too. Sorry Foo. But do you remember tort reform? Do you remember cross state competition for HC?

IMO you are revising history.

The bill was written behind closed doors by the Dems and dropped on their desks late at night and expected to vote on it the next day.

You do remember Obamas pledge to post any bill online don't you? or to make sure any bill writen would be read and not voted on for 3 days or something? I can't remember that part.

Anyway...

So I want to see what the other side is saying about the repeal of HC, (since FoxNews just lies) and what are the topics I've seen so far on Hardball? Sarah Palin! That is so hilarious. The lefts "NEWS" is a disgrace. Sorry, I mean no disrespect.

It's news-based entertainment. They aren't claiming to be "fair and balanced". In fact, "Lean Forward" blatantly discloses that you are watching programming with a progressive viewpoint.

Surely you can see the difference.

Yeah, the big differences are:

1) The channel not called "NBC News"
2) They don't claim to be fair and balanced
3) They actually invite GOP people on there to defend themselves
4) They don't lie out their ass and make shit up (like posting pictures from a different rally to lie about attendance)

Sure, MSNBC puts a liberal spin on things, but they don't pretend to be something they are not. The bad thing about Fox "News" is that a large chunk of viewers don't actually know they are being lied to on a regular basis.

^that.

^lol

^^ lol

rofl

lol

It's news-based entertainment. They aren't claiming to be "fair and balanced". In fact, "Lean Forward" blatantly discloses that you are watching programming with a progressive viewpoint.

Surely you can see the difference.

But MSNBC routinely has Tom Brokaw on, F Chuck Todd, Senators and Congress peeps. Is it a news program in the classic sense? No, but nothing is anymore, afaict.

I dislike O'Reilly a lot, but at least he says that he is not a journalist but opinion something or other? I forgot the phrase that a lot of them use nowadats to describe themselves so they can add their opinion.

Maybe Headline News(if its still on) is just reading of the news, but thats a lost approach that was prolly driven by viewership. I mean peeps watch opinion news these day cuz they like it better.

btw...about an hour after I ripped MSNBC, which is still a joke to me for other reasons, Fox had a story about some lottery winner who has to share her winnings with her estranged hubby. So the repeal was obviously news, but maybe not worthy of one straight hour of coverage. mybadonthatpart

I really don't care what they consider newsworthy (on MSNBC or Fox News since they are not true news stations). Olberman's Thurbur readings are not news (I turn it off when he reads them), so it isn't like they don't run some non hard hitting stuff either.

That being said, the stories they choose to cover should as least be the truth. They should also not employ actual GOP candidates on their payroll and donate to the GOP governor's fund, then turn around and call themselves fair and balanced.

Just read that Comcast might try to raise the Titanic.

I"m just in a laughing mood tonight cuz this is funny too. Sorry Foo. But do you remember tort reform? Do you remember cross state competition for HC?

IMO you are revising history.

The bill was written behind closed doors by the Dems and dropped on their desks late at night and expected to vote on it the next day.

You do remember Obamas pledge to post any bill online don't you? or to make sure any bill writen would be read and not voted on for 3 days or something? I can't remember that part.

Anyway...

What a joke. Like they took up health care then voted on it the next day.

Passed the Senate in Dec, passed the House in March.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS

I remember Max Baucus and months of trying to get Pubs to contribute only to have them reject everything out of hand.
http://mobile.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/baucus/index.html

I remember Olympia Snow being the ONLY Pub who was willing to even talk about contributing to the bill.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925829,00.html

I know you've got a short attention span and an aging memory, so maybe this will help.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

"Revisionist History" from the guy who can't even decide what slanderous name he wants to give the legislation.

Gla,

Are you ok?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24olbermann.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1295881705-g+OD1P+ZrBg7jvU8M2y/IA

I like Keith, he just gets fired. That's what he do.

What a joke. Like they took up health care then voted on it the next day.

No, its like I said, they dropped the 2300 page bill on their desks late one night and were expected to vote on it the next day. If you don't remember that, sorry, can't help ya.

Passed the Senate in Dec, passed the House in March.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS

I remember Max Baucus and months of trying to get Pubs to contribute only to have them reject everything out of hand.

And I remember the Repubs trying to get reasonable medical lawsuit reform and trying to increase competition by giving peeps the opportunity to purchase hc across state lines and they wouldn't even let the Repubs in with them when they were writing the bill.
I remember Olympia Snow being the ONLY Pub who was willing to even talk about contributing to the bill.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925829,00.html

I know you've got a short attention span and an aging memory, so maybe this will help.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

"Revisionist History" from the guy who can't even decide what slanderous name he wants to give the legislation.
^ LOL

I like Keith, he just gets fired. That's what he do.

I grew tired of him lately. He was always a little bit of a windbag (not to the level of Rush though), but became more of a "look at me" type lately. Especially with that BS reading books on Friday. I'm not that sad to see him go. Rachel does a much better job IMO. Lawrence has been good in his guest hosting but I haven't seen his own show yet (I just download the podcasts and I don't even know if he has those for his show).

I bet Olby falls forward. This was negotiated departure. He seems to really hard to deal with as an employee or something. Maybe he'll do a cable type show...but then he'd be competing with Maher.

Personally I think his obscene attempt, along with the rest of the left, to blame the AZ shooting on REPUBLICAN political pov is as crazy as he is. He seemed to put a line in the sand that Republicans shouldn't cross and then cross that line multiple times on a nightly basis. I feel like the left does that all the time though, so obviously take that with a grain of salt.

He'd fit best on Comedy Central with Stewart and Colbert, IMO.

Imagine KO as the successor to Gibbs.

Chris Matthews...just called her a balloon head. There ya go Barack, there's your civility.

Chris and one of his lefties whinning about why the Tea Party came into existence when their guy was in office. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

I actually thought that was a pretty cogent point. Where was this Tea Party movement when Bush was destroying our surplus?

IMO, they were starting it back then. The Tea Party is concerned right now about being absorbed into the Repubs and losing their way.

The Tea Party's main point is fiscal restraint. The Repubs clearly failed that over the Bush years.

I don't know how 2012 will work out for the WH, but the Tea Party could easily give Barack the WH, imo, if they run a candidate and takes votes from the Repub.

Ah, the reverse Ralph Nader effect. Perot, too.

How long has Cenk from The Young Turks been on MSNBC?

The guy is clearly smart, and I like a lot of the angles that he takes, but he's a horrible broadcaster. His radio show is basically unlistenable, and this TV show seems worse.

He pauses about 3 seconds too long to answer everything. It's almost like his incoming audio signal is on a delay, like he's on the moon or something.

I just caught the first segment, but he was like a friggin machine gun. Non-stop.

I actually thought that was a pretty cogent point. Where was this Tea Party movement when Reagan was advancing the deficit?

Fixed.

Does Reagan get any pass for rebuilding our military?

No, he gets all the blame. We weren't attacked once. Incredible waste.

Ended USSR without firing a shot.

Yeah, communism was going to beat us over time, right? That never would have happened on it's own. Instead they fell into an awful spiral and are now run by the mob. Well played.

^ Did you get a lil help from some hindsight there, Herm?

As a libertarian, you can guess my hind and foresight on communistic regimes.

And it's fine to like Reagan, I get that he brought us some immediate satisfaction and we hadn't had any of that for a while. But all it did was allow Clinton and Bush to excuse themselves and spend out their ass when they should have been saving during the greatest economic boom our nation has ever known.

lol @ msnbc saying that the seating is why there was less than normal applause.

Ended USSR without firing a shot.
That's only because the USSR wasn't shooting at us, directly.
There was a ton of proxy warfare.

Oh is that it.

The only reason MSNBC stopped covering Palin is so they could cover Bachmann. lol

I'm thinking Matthews secretly loves those 2.

I would too, if I were him.

Endless fodder.

^ Cuz he doesn't have anything else.

Seriously though, if Baracks speech was really good last night, he'd be talking about that. It wasn't, so he has to go on the attack mode on a female congressman.

Barack hsan't made a really inspiring speech in a couple years, imo. I think/hope the liberal media now knows that when you blow so much smoke about someones speeches that it can come back to haunt you.

"We (the left) were concerned that the Pres wouldn't face 'austerity politics' head on.

Friggin libs still think there is a money tree somewhere. Incredible.

Perhaps you can articulate for us how a solid round of austerity will cause or boost an economic recovery.

The same way it works for a household. If you are swimming in debt, you are fucked. Get out of debt, cut taxes, put money in peeps pockets.

^ Thats just one way.

The household analogy is a very limited one because a country with its own currency and central bank simply doesn't have the same operational constraints as a household or corporation.

But hey, just for kicks, lets roll with it anyway.


If you are swimming in debt, you are fucked. Get out of debt, cut taxes, put money in peeps pockets.

Taxes are the government's income. Your advice to someone swimming in debt is first cut your income. Really?

'Get out of debt' is the first part. CUT SPENDING! CUT GOV'T!

We can't grow ourselves out of this shithole we're in. Then you can cut taxes.

Ok, they cut a dollar of taxes and a dollar of spending. That is... deficit neutral and we're assuming that deficits are inherently evil and must be cured now are we not?

Ah, but wait. Let's cut a dollar of taxes and cut two dollars of spending. There's some progress on the deficit and surely that will make things better for everyone.

Except, total demand (all govt spending + all private spending) just took a net loss of a dollar. Less demand means less jobs which means less demand... in a vicious cycle.

Or we can do it in sequence like you said. Don't cut taxes. Cut spending. Whack, two bucks in spending gone. Same problem, just bigger.

Looks like banging on deficits right now just made things worse.

Do them consecutively, not all at the same time.

Just cut spending. Cut Gov't. Deep cuts. Cut branches of Gov't. Do that for at least a year. The interest on our debt won't rise cuz our creditors will see the progress. Then at some point, cut taxes.

The problem is in doing so you strangle the life out of the economy. Government spending goes out into the real economy just the same as consumer spending and business spending. It consumes real goods and services and pays real workers and is a significant chunk of the total amount of demand.

Cuts, deep cuts, lop a chunk off that demand. What do businesses do when there is less demand for their stuff? They make less stuff and start firing people. What do people do when they've been fired or fear for their jobs? They spend less money. When people spend less money there's less demand for stuff and businesses... oh, we've come full circle. A vicious circle of economic downturn where all the actors are doing the individually prudent thing and everyone suffers.

Expanded government spending--much of which happens automatically as more people reach out for safety net programs and tax receipts shrink--can break that circle, making a downturn shorter and less severe. When things are on the upswing, deficits start to correct themselves as tax receipts grow and there's less demand for social safety net spending. At that point you can start hacking away at deficits more broadly without crippling the "hard working peeps" the government is supposed to be serving.

I'm on my iPhone about to go to the bar...

I can't see everything you wrote cuz the small screen but because deep cuts are made doesn't mean the money disapears. The money is back in the peeps hands to spend. Just cuz it doesn't go to Gov't job doesn't mean it's lost.

BTW. I'm not driving Tbro. :)

I think geerussell is right here. I've talked about cutting defense spending. But even that means job cuts for those companies making the defense products.

I think the key is to cut in places like that, but use that money to invest in infrastructure projects. Then the money is going to something that benefits the country long term. The biggest problem is that we are a country that imports so many of our goods. I don't know how you get the country back to making most of their stuff though.

because deep cuts are made doesn't mean the money disapears.

Cuts mean precisely that. A dollar in spending cuts is a dollar taken out of the economy and a dollar less demand.


The money is back in the peeps hands to spend.

This is mixing up the concept of spending cuts which take money out of the economy with tax cuts which, for deficit purposes are spending which puts more money into the economy. Yes, tax cuts are spending. Tax cuts are stimulus. Tax cuts are the opposite of deficit reduction.

In pictures...

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c28e8027f8b9ad402570000/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif

That big, dark orange area... that's the contribution of tax cuts to the deficit. You can have your multi-layer cake of war spending, tax cut spending and other stimulus/bailout spending... but deficit reduction eats the cake.




The biggest problem is that we are a country that imports so many of our goods. I don't know how you get the country back to making most of their stuff though.

It would require the impossible, which is to get grownups at the table from all trading partners to moderate the extremes of trade surplus/deficit. Extremes are bad at both ends, trade surplus (imports inflation) and trade deficit (exports jobs).

Cuts mean precisely that. A dollar in spending cuts is a dollar taken out of the economy and a dollar less demand.

No it doesn't. The taxpayer has that dollar and will either spend it or save it. Neither of those are bad.



This is mixing up the concept of spending cuts which take money out of the economy with tax cuts which, for deficit purposes are spending which puts more money into the economy. Yes, tax cuts are spending. Tax cuts are stimulus. Tax cuts are the opposite of deficit reduction.

In pictures...

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c28e8027f8b9ad402570000/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif

That big, dark orange area... that's the contribution of tax cuts to the deficit. You can have your multi-layer cake of war spending, tax cut spending and other stimulus/bailout spending... but deficit reduction eats the cake.





It would require the impossible, which is to get grownups at the table from all trading partners to moderate the extremes of trade surplus/deficit. Extremes are bad at both ends, trade surplus (imports inflation) and trade deficit (exports jobs).

Look, cut spending is the first step. At some point we will have a surplus in our FY budget and then we can pay down the debt if taxes are at an acceptable level. It looks like I'm making a case for tax cuts here and I am LONG TERM, but taxes are acceptable where they are at right now.

Take the surplus and pay down the FUCKIN DEBT!

I think geerussell is right here. I've talked about cutting defense spending. But even that means job cuts for those companies making the defense products.

I think the key is to cut in places like that, but use that money to invest in infrastructure projects. Then the money is going to something that benefits the country long term. The biggest problem is that we are a country that imports so many of our goods. I don't know how you get the country back to making most of their stuff though.

As long as we want to buy a flat screen TV from China for $1000 instead of $1800, it is a problem.

It would require the impossible, which is to get grownups at the table from all trading partners to moderate the extremes of trade surplus/deficit. Extremes are bad at both ends, trade surplus (imports inflation) and trade deficit (exports jobs).
And the end to what is essentially slavery in the sweatshops that we buy from. That is one of the biggest contributors to the trade deficit.

It's not just the direct exploitation of workers. It's the selling off of the resources that poor countries have to international corporations which makes it impossible for poor countries to create a locally owned domestic economy.

Instead of the people owning their own resources and making and selling their own products to themselves (then selling the surplus as exports), these countries are pushed to create export economies with foreign companies owning all the resources and selling the products overseas. These countries take out loans to build plants, give out subsidies and hand out tax breaks to attract corporations so they can export all their natural resources and be forced to import survival goods (food, shelter, clothing) because their entire industry is export based and doesn't sell to their own people. Importing all their needs only decreases their ability to repay their loans and POOF the country is hooked into a debt cycle that continues to swallow more and more of their economic power. As the debt grows they are forced to focus more and more of their tax revenue and economy toward repaying the ever growing loans.

The poor countries who have been successful at growing economically strong are the one's who have grown a strong domestic economy first, not export based economies.

No it doesn't. The taxpayer has that dollar and will either spend it or save it. Neither of those are bad.


Again, the difference between a spending cut and a tax cut. A tax cut puts a dollar back to the taxpayer. A spending cut just makes the government spend less without affecting how much the taxpayer pays.

Going back to the deficit, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Cutting taxes increases the deficit. Cutting spending strangles the recovery. Pick your poison.


Look, cut spending is the first step. At some point we will have a surplus in our FY budget and then we can pay down the debt if taxes are at an acceptable level.

I'm not saying that debt and deficits don't matter, they do. However you can't fix that problem in the middle of a downturn without making the downturn worse, which in turn drives down tax receipts, pushes more people into social safety nets, driving up the deficit. As a recipe for recovery, austerity is pure snake-oil.

The poor countries who have been successful at growing economically strong are the one's who have grown a strong domestic economy first, not export based economies.

Or, as in the case of china, if they have a coherent, cutthroat industrial policy. China will draw you in with the honeypot of cheap labor but they will force you to partner with their domestic companies (even if they have to create one from scratch for that purpose) to do business there. In the process, you share all your know-how and technology with this partner and a few years later you are competing against clones of yourself as your tech, methods and anything else you brought to the table have been reproduced domestically without you as a partner.

Then as a final insult, once you are no longer useful you might find the tariff situation has magically shifted such that it's no longer even profitable for you to do business there at all.

Again, the difference between a spending cut and a tax cut. A tax cut puts a dollar back to the taxpayer. A spending cut just makes the government spend less without affecting how much the taxpayer pays.

Going back to the deficit, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Cutting taxes increases the deficit. Cutting spending strangles the recovery. Pick your poison.



I'm not saying that debt and deficits don't matter, they do. However you can't fix that problem in the middle of a downturn without making the downturn worse, which in turn drives down tax receipts, pushes more people into social safety nets, driving up the deficit. As a recipe for recovery, austerity is pure snake-oil.

Again, Cut Gov't spending is the first part. Just forget tax cuts.

I don't know what the budget is this year, but according to the reports yesterday, we will have a 1.2 TRILLION to 1.5 TRILLION dollar deficit for this year alone.

So just to use easy numbers, say we brought in 8 Trillion this year, but we spend 9.5 Trillion. WE NEED TO CUT SPENDING. That just adds to the 14trillion national debt.

CUT SPENDING!

I know if we increase tax rates would help. But for most peeps out here in the real world are saying FUCK YOU GOV'T, CUT SPENDING!

I like Stossel saying cut depts. We have to cut our budget and there are certain depts in our Gov't that are nothing but wasted money. So instead of taking money from taxpayers to pay for a wasted dept, take that money and, at the very least, balance the budget. Its painful but thats the answer.

Or, as in the case of china, if they have a coherent, cutthroat industrial policy. China will draw you in with the honeypot of cheap labor but they will force you to partner with their domestic companies (even if they have to create one from scratch for that purpose) to do business there. In the process, you share all your know-how and technology with this partner and a few years later you are competing against clones of yourself as your tech, methods and anything else you brought to the table have been reproduced domestically without you as a partner.

Then as a final insult, once you are no longer useful you might find the tariff situation has magically shifted such that it's no longer even profitable for you to do business there at all.

Some would call that smart business if peeps will do it.

We Americans have this nice guy approach with a lot of things. We think China should behave like us. Sorry.

We've had it good for lots of decades but then the cheap labor market of the world came along our workers feel left out to dry.

That and some of our crazy Gov't regulations and, now that Japan lowered its corporate tax rate, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Some would call that smart business if peeps will do it.

Here in america, the concept of even having any sort of industrial policy at the national level is derided as socialist. By default, we do have an industrial policy... corporations buy congress, capture the regulatory process and make tons of money while being indifferent to whether any jobs are produced here or any taxes paid in america.

By the way, that headline HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE IN THE UNIVERSE bit is a headfake. Don't fall for it. The biggest corporations, the multinationals, don't pay anything remotely resembling that. For an illustration: Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html)

We need to simplify the tax codes, no doubt.

I was just listening to someone that said that paying down the debt will give the country and our creditors some confidence that we have a handle on the debt.

But Gee has a point about not being able to cut Depts cuz some of the money comes out of the economy. Especially with the size of cuts that this country needs to pay down its debt. So 'phasing out' of HUD, Dept of Education, etc is a better way to do it.

I think geerussell is right here. I've talked about cutting defense spending. But even that means job cuts for those companies making the defense products.

I think the key is to cut in places like that, but use that money to invest in infrastructure projects. Then the money is going to something that benefits the country long term. The biggest problem is that we are a country that imports so many of our goods. I don't know how you get the country back to making most of their stuff though.

This is the kind of thing that got us into the crisis we are in right now.

We have regular line items for roads and bridges. Then Obama's stimulus package of a Trillion or something and Obama and liberals are asking for more. It incredible to me to see this, but whatever.

Lets spend our way out of this mess.

But hey, at least you put forward your ideas WTFC.

Chris Matthews, prolly the only idiot that could rival Billy O in buffoonness, keeps saying 'barack obama' instead of Mubarak. LMMFAO. Such an idiot.

If Fox did that, it'd be all over the liberal media about attempting to say Barry is a Muslim. But 'oh, no, its on a lib channel so its ok.

Chrissy just did again.

"Why do I keep getting that wrong?" I don't know Chrissy. But maybe the next time someone on Fox does, you won't want them to face the death penalty.

LMAO

The Al Jazeera guest has a more pro US pov, then Chrissy Mathews does. lol

why should I be surprised by that?

David Gregory is such a tool. Mouthpiece for the Dems.

He asked Ryan..."Arent you embarrassed?" when asking Ryan about the budget.

Dems had house/senate/exec and didn't pass a budget. Then no leadership from the Dems and he asks if a Repub is embarrassed.

You can't make that shit up.

NBC MSNBC same thing.

iljFSvrKa58&feature

StephenAtHome
I'm up for a daytime Emmy against something called Teen Kids News. I'm guessing that's MSNBC.

Still payin' for Bush's/Rep fucked up war economics..... yet they cry about where we're at today... stupid fucks still don't get the cost of war.... let's go kick Costa Rica's ass for the hell of it.

Uh oh, some peeps just don't "get" the LOL@ threads

Uh oh, some peeps just don't "get" the LOL@ threads
He He... no doubt... gotta get the lappy wired to a breathlizer :^)

Uh oh, some peeps just don't "get" the LOL@ threads

This Swami cat is awesome. First he supports a President that supports all of Bush's policies against terrorists, now he even gets LOL theads.

Not sure if he is on the twetterz, but if he is, follow him. True NeoCon. He gets it.

Mark Halperin Calls Obama a “Dick” on “Morning Joe” (http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/30/mark-halperin-calls-obama-a-dick-on-morning-joe/)

I'm pretty sure that Obama's going to play this smooth, maybe even funny.

Mark Halperin Suspended Indefinitely from MSNBC (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/mark-halperin-suspended-obama-dick_b73992)

I'm pretty sure that Obama's going to play this smooth, maybe even funny.

^ I think Obama plays everything smooth and funny for you.

It'll be great if Obama ever actually does anything good for the country.

This is a funny segment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/jon-stewart-mocks-mark-halperin-willie-geist_n_888584.html

Come up for some air glan!

Mark Halperin was right (http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/06/mark-halperin-was-right.html), lol.

LOL @ another WHACKO Lib...Al Gore. Whinning and crying idiot. He got caught in his lies about climate change and made millions off of his lying. The left soaked all that shit up and ran with it.

What a worthless piece of shit al gore is...but still not as bad as Edwards.

Libs are just ridiculous most of the time.

You seriously don't believe in Global Warming?

Al Gore and the libs description is complete and utter bullshit.

Al Sharpton should not be on tv.

Horrible.

LOL @ these fags. Unbelievable.

They spew so much shit you can't even respond to their lies.

Keep up your shit work MSNBC and you fucked up libs.

I wanted to ask a question about something someone said on MSNBC but not sure if 'I' can use the 'N' word on here. I know libs can but not sure about conservatives.

Please advise and I'll play along.

Are these fuckin turds serious? These fucks do nothing but shit in peeps ears.

just simply LOL @ MSNBC. So in the tank.

Their ratings are going up, so it's working for them. And to be fair, their goal is to be in the tank in much the same way that Fox is in the tank.

I used to like their news site back when it was run more by the Microsoft arm of things -- now, not so much.

Their ratings are going up, so it's working for them. And to be fair, their goal is to be in the tank in much the same way that Fox is in the tank.

I used to like their news site back when it was run more by the Microsoft arm of things -- now, not so much.


lol

So we had a terrorist attack on the aniversary of 9-11 and these fucks are talking about Romney.

The left, and part of this country, has left America. All they want to do is get their guy in elected at all costs.

They don't care about 16trillion in debt, they care about making sure clean coal energy isn't used and continue to depend on mideast oil.

But overall they want to talk about Romney saying 47% is getting payed by the Gov't. Not that Odipshit lied to the country about the terrorist attacks. They only care about winning.

Where are all the peeps that thought the towers were brought down by Bush? Shouldn't they be asking questioons of Odipshit and his lies? Crickets!

LMMFAO at these douches.

oh yea, forgot, Repubs are also surpressing african american vote. Jesus H Christ

Can't do stories on Odumbfuck cuz he's a failure. Keep destroying the challenger to this failure of a Prez.

And the Jerrry Springer crowd eats this shit up!

LMAO

LOL!

They just said that the rioters are still rioting cuz of that move trailer.

LOL!

LOL @ These phagz. THEY ARE HAVING CORONARIES over there. Basically cuz the Prez didn't spew their lies, the lies MSNBC gets away with saying every night and the sheep believe.

Seriously, LMMFAO.

I half expect Obama to win, so these guyz, Rachel included there, will most likely get the last laugh, but they provided me with some intense laughter tnite.

The left wing echo chamber got a wake up call tnite. Ya just can't have the Prez lie in Prez debates. I mean, the Prez did lie, but you can't have him go with all those lies at MSNBC.

In closing, LOL.

I really like watching these fuckin amateurs on election night when they get their collective asses handed to them. Hilfuckinlarious!

Chrissy Mathews and the host that looks like someone on your son's little league team. So funny. Better than any comedy going on TV right now.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/no-wonder-the-guy-so-unpopular

^ I didn't click the link, but did it bring up ISIS? IBOLA? IRS Scandal? VA? Benghazi? Or just more of the liberal bullshit message?

It did mention ebola, in fact. But mostly I brought it up because it was the blog of the host that looks like someone on your son's little league team. :)

Oh. I get it now.


But this election has to ask the question..."What will happen to the Democratic party now"


Wasn't that Bubs question? But asked about Repubs?

MSNBC Fires Greta Van Susteren
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/6/29/1676496/-MSNBC-Fires-Greta-Van-Susteren?detail=facebook