Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's Obambi's standard M.O. for those he doesn't agree with. Just demonize them. Fox News, republicans, Insurance Companies, Wall Street, drug manufactures, and now Supreme Court justices.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh good grief....was it a slow news day or what?

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis's comment is laugh-out-loud funny - Obama (the communistic Kenyan dictator who wants to kill your grandparents) is demonizing people. Shameful! Everybody on his Noesis's list above is delighted with the ruling. Hmmmmm....

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fourteenth amendment says "All persons..." when defining the rights of citizenship. The new supreme court ruling includes corporations; it gave them the same rights and protections as human beings. The framers would be as revolted by this as most Americans who are paying attention to this scam. Those five justices are constitutional scholars - they know better - but they're also wingnuts. This corporate power grab is the kind of thing they were appointed to do, not save the unborn or any of the rest of the blah de blah they spout when they're talking up their nominees. Obama had an obligation to explain what had just happened to the millions who watched the state of the union speech, but don't pay much attention to anything else. It was an awkward moment for the court, but who gives a flip? The fact is that American companies owned by foreign interests can donate a billion dollars to our political campaigns, if they feel like it. Because they're human beings now, with constitutional rights. Bull. This will get fixed.

Posted by Philo_Publius (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is the Supreme Justice that should not have made a gesture....They are supposed to be apolitical.....The rest sat stoic, except for scalia lite.....shame on him, not Obama...Obama is not the first, not the last to critize the court at the SOTU address.......philo publius

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Countdown until Obama leaves Office
1079 Days, 18 Hours, 26 Minutes, 36 Seconds.

I hope as a nation we can survive this long.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta, it's really very simple.

The Bill of rights states: ‘‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .

It didn't say anything about people like it did when it said: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

So when it says Congress shall make no laws, it's very simple. ANY law that takes away the freedom of speech is illegal.

The 14th amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship. Nobody is trying to give companies the right to vote in an election.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody is trying to give companies the right to vote

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be because they're not human beings, regardless of the court's decision. They can't speak, either, aside from shoveling money at candidates who can be depended on to speak against reform and regulation. The whole thing is ridiculous - their lobbyists already own most of our politicians, ensuring that legislation that helps human beings instead of corporations doesn't happen. Human beings are in deep trouble here, and the ruling makes it even harder for anyone to help them. Any Jefferson scholars out there? For the supreme court to twist his great work into this ugly knot that's going to be hard to untangle is obscene.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again Keta, what part of "‘‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech..." don't you understand?

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The freedom of speech of corporations? Get outta here. Poor corporations - they must be allowed to have a voice! As if their voice wasn't already just about the only one being heard in D.C..

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta, I don't remember disclaimers in the sentance:

‘‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech..."

ANY law that restricts any form of freedom of speech is illegal, corporations, unions or whatever...

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis is right. There is no qualification on freedom of speech in the First Amendment.

I know it is annoying when people we don't like(or corporations) have that freedom, but there it is. I can't take 30 seconds of Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann, but again, there it is. If a corporation produces a political ad you don't like, don't buy their product or vote for the candidate. And I don't see any media corporation announcing that they won't take corporate money for ads.

Check out the author of the Tillman Act, the original law banning corporate donations, Ben "Pitchfork" Tillman, one of the most infamous racists ever to sit in the U.S. Congress. Some feel that he was against corporate donations because northern corporations were donating money to promote civil rights.

I like T. Jefferson, but if he'd had his way, America would have stayed agrarian and we would not have developed our strong industrial economy in the 19th century. And maybe he was right, but I don't think the Industrial Revolution was going to be stopped and to be industrialized meant incorporating to have a steady supply of money.
But even Tom stood firm to stop Virginia's ratification of the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was promised to be added to it.
So I think that while the corporate donations would have made him squirm, he would have been more in support of freedom of speech, as a true John Locke follower. I notice he gave up or amended some of his beliefs when he became president, so who knows really.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As if their voice wasn't already just about the only one being heard in D.C..
-------------------------------
I'm fairly certain that the tea partiers in Mass. were heard loud and clear.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

if a corporation produces an ad you don't like

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean if one wants to finance a multi-million dollar TV movie called "Obama - our Kenyan Dictator", I should switch to a different brand of light bulbs? I think the scope of this is what you're not getting, as well as the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater aspect of it.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the tea partiers in Mass. were heard loud and clear

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They're saying some pretty bad things about Republicans, loud and clear. On the other hand, some of them are eager to hear a Sarah Palin speech, which wrecks their credibility with about half the population. As does the for-profit trouble with this rodeo, old Michele Bachman backing out, yikes.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"as well as the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater aspect of it."
--------------------
There is ZERO shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater aspect to it.

If somebody wants to call Obama the most vile names possible, claims that he does sex acts with Harry Reid... That the ego master of the world needs to be impeached...

guess what, that's protected under freedom of speech.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pretty funny that you mock Sarah, Keta when we have a Commander in Chief that can't even pronounce corpse-man properly. Must be in the same ballpark as his 57 states.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On the other hand, some of them are eager to hear a Sarah Palin speech, which wrecks their credibility with about half the population.
----------------------------
That's OK, she's talking to the half of America that disapproves of the job that Obama is doing.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She's talking to the fraction of America the CNN teaparty correspondent just spent the last hour calling "unhinged". Like Democrats, your people need to convince independents. Pro-choice Scott Brown did it by talking about the only thing they really cared about - fiscal responsibility. Trouble is, Republicans are screwed in the area of fiscal responsibility, and their presidential campaigns by definition have to include a lot of fearmongering nonsense and pandering to evangelicals. Independent means "up for grabs" - it doesn't mean "idiot". The're fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives.

Posted by Vil (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you really want to talk about the Framers of the Constitution being sickened, they would probably be sickened that we have a black President. They could never fathom that a piece of property, aka their slaves, could run this nation.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 6, 2010 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I concur completely with Philo_publius comment. The Supreme Court Justices are WORTHY of criticism. They are not infallible or to be more respected than any other man or women in this country, they are not above criticism. I think, as Philo pointed out, Justice Samuel Alito committed the breach of etiquette. Having the honor of serving as a Supreme Court Justice he does have the obligation to be apolitical. He goofed!

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just love how you Liberals denigrate Sarah Palin. She has more common sense in her middle finger than Obama has in that pea sized brain of his. Sarah scares the heck of the liberals because they know she connects with the majority of this country. Had she been at the top of the ticket rather than McCain, we would not even be talking about Obama. She was tethered by the McCain camp as the VP candidate because she was more conservative by a longshot than McCain. When the lamestream media criticize endlessly a Republican, that is a Republican worthy of being backed by conservatives. John McCain was treated as pseudo liberal by the media because he tried to play it both ways. Well guess what? He got caught in the middle and when you are in the middle of the road, you get run over.

Posted by summerrain (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike Haney,
Do not worry...we barely survived with Bush. We will be fine.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just love how you liberals

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just love the way Sarah and the teapartiers are becoming a kind of third party. They're trashing McCain and Bush, the logical leaders of the Republican party. Sarah is their leader by default, and they're working hard to take over what's left of the Republican party. I can't help remembering her campaign speeches, making claims that were easily disproved while clueless crowds of trailer-dwelling mouthbreathers cheered, and McCain stood behind her, looking sheepish but willing to take whatever he could get from it. He deserved to lose, and he deserved to have to assure the crazy lady that no, Obama isn't an Arab, while cameras rolled and Democrats jumped for joy. The Palin speech is on while I'm paying bills here, and she sounds exactly like a high-school senior who wants to be class president. Leadership. You gotta getcha some of that.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by keta
She's talking to the fraction of America the CNN teaparty correspondent just spent the last hour calling "unhinged".
------------------
Sorry to break the news to you Keta:

Shocker polls: That Sarah Palin-Barack Obama gap melts to 1 point

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, look what the pollsters just brought in.

A pair of new surveys revealing that President Obama is still declining and has hit a new low in job approval among Americans just 56 weeks after they elected him with a decided margin.

And -- wait for it -- Republican Sarah Palin is successfully selling a whole lot more than books out there on the road. Even among those not lining up in 10-degree weather to catch a glimpse of pretty much the only political celebrity the GOP has these days.

Obama's new Gallup Poll job approval number is 47%. Last month it was 53%.

The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers, what was Alito supposed to do when Obama lies and says that the court has overturned a centuries worth of law? Nod and agree with him? He should have shouted out to Obama: YOU LIE!!!

And Keta, I have no problem with the tea partiers trashing McCain and Bush. Most republicans will agree that Bush spent to much and McCain was to liberal. The tea partiers want fiscal responsibility. And as far as turning them into a third party... I doubt it, they just want to hold republicans feet to the fire.

And please, you talk about "making claims that were easily disproved", you were doing it on a daily basis. There wasn't a rumor on the internet that you weren't expounding on as a fact. Palin was a book banner, she believes in witchcraft, she was a seperationalist, she had an affair, Todd had an affair, she used government funds to build her house, she was cutting funds for needy kids, that she had rape victims charged for thier own rape kit... I'm sure that I missed quite a few... so you have plenty of nerve whining about false rumors...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leadership. You gotta getcha some of that.
------------------------------
When will Obambi be receiving his?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Independent means "up for grabs" - it doesn't mean "idiot".
----------------------------------

Well, I'm sure a lot of them feel like idiots now... for voting for Obama. That's why so many of them are deserting him and the democratic party.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shocker polls:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shame on you, Noesis. That cut and paste is months old, and it compares Palin's favorability ratings - that is, the general sense of her - to Obama's job approval ratings. Palin doesn't have a job, so there's no point of comparison there, except this make-believe one. And, for the record, I've never mentioned the Palins' extramarital affairs, if there were any. Who cares? And why bother, when there's such a rich vein of nonsense to be mined without sorting through their dirty laundry?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't blame me Keta, it was the liberal L.A. Times that wrote that article... and I'm sure her favorabilty numbers have increased... You say it's a fraction of America... I say it's a very large fraction.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep treating Sarah like you do because we on the right know exactly what it means. With independents fleeing to the right and even some democrat senators and housecritters, you on the left can take pride in knowing Obama will be a one termer and it was your liberal ways and his that got you there. History lesson: George McGovern ran as a liberal and was blasted away by, of all people, Richard Nixon. Carter ran in the middle and beat an incumbant that nobody even voted for and governed liberal and got blasted by Ronald Reagan. Walter Mondale ran as a liberal and got blasted. Michael Dukakis ran as a moderate but everybody knew he was a lib and got blasted by Bush 41, a good person but a personality that is sorely lacking and raised taxes to boot. Clinton ran as a moderate, won, thanks to Ross Perot then governed to the left until he lost the house for the first time in 40 years. Had it not been for the republican takeover of the house forcing him to the middle and even to the right, he would have been a one termer. The republicans helped him out by running Bob Dole. An honorable man but not presidential material. Gore had no idea which way to run and it cost him big time. You must first have principles. Then you do not have to decide how to run. JFKerry tried to run as a conservative but he couldn't shake loos the fact that he ran his country down and people tend not to forget that. Obama was a gift from the Republicans. Had Dick Cheney run, again, we would not even be talking about Obama now. Whether Sarah wants to run for president or not, the conservatives in this country back her political ideology. If she doesn't run, the party better find somebody who can capture her spirit and ability to connect with people. If not, the republicans deserve what they get.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After the moderates have seen Obama's socialist agenda, republicans could nominate a local dog catcher and he'd probably win in a landslide.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't blame me, Keta, it was the liberal L.A. Times that wrote that article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You just thought you'd pass it on in case somebody might believe it... you're pathetic, Noesis.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis,

One would think that. For the sake of America's survival, I hope the majority of Americans can see through the hopey changey thing and realize what a dopey person we have running this country right now.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta, you're just upset that the more people hear Palin talk, the more people like her.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you hear that Obama made a P.A. announcement the other day at Congress?

"Would the owner of the moving van with Massachusetts license plates please move their vehicle, you're blocking my agenda!"

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 7, 2010 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now that is classic! Bet he still had to use his teleprompter. What a dope. He makes Bush 43 look like Einstein.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

typical moron statements from the peanut gallery. Glad I missed it this weekend.

Are you all sure its Sara Pailn doing these talks? That "hopey changey" garbage sounds much more like Tina Fey, which is the real reason anyone likes Sara Palin. She sounds and looks like Tina Fey. They may have her confused. "I'm voting for that SNL chick!" That's the only reason America has suffered through Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, and Arnold Swartzeneger. They're celebrities. That's all, Popularity contest.

Stay dumb boys. Serves us democrats well. We'll fix the country. You think of more reasons to not like us. Everything will be just fine.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

one of my fave Palin quotes:

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?"

But apparently, Sara herself doesn't think she should be president by this one:

"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, "Man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress this country."

No women in politics? Man, she IS a hardcore republican!

Posted by kce (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right in the middle of his speech the president lambasted The Members of the US Supreme Court. The justices had to have been absolutely stunned to hear the president say: “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

Even before he finished urging Congress to right this terrible wrong, hundreds of Democratic senators, congressmen and cabinet officers had jumped to their feet, cheering and applauding the president’s remarks.

But there was something worse than the president’s bad manners. It’s that his remarks weren’t true; the Supreme Court ruling had done no such thing. Yes, in a landmark case known as Citizens United, the Court had the previous week reversed a 1990 ban against political advertising by domestic corporations and labor unions. But it left standing a 100-year-old ban on foreign entities doing so.

Yes, Barack Obama—an honored graduate of Harvard Law and one-time professor of Constitutional Law—had his facts wrong. Apparently, among the several dozen people who vetted the State of the Union Address, not a single one bothered to check the facts of the matter. While that’s awfully hard to believe, it’s better than the alternative—that Obama knew what he would say was false, and he just didn’t care!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

typical moron statements from the peanut gallery. Glad I missed it this weekend
---------------------
Now Jonferguson, you shouldn't be so hard on Keta!

And... I see your reading comprehension is still below that of a third grader... Where exactly in her above statement does she say there are no women in politics???

And it's Biden who was clueless on the duties of a VP. Lets look at his statement during the debate:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I (It's actually Article II) of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit. (Here's what the constitution actually says: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”)

only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. (The vice president is the president of the Senate, where he interprets the rules and can only be overridden by a vote of 60 senators.)
The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

To bad your opinions never match up with the facts Jonferguson.

Posted by tdray71 (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One question ...What has Obama done for you and the city of Ironton?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ha! Not my opinion Necrosis, its fact...plain and simple.

And, its good to see you realizing that Cheney was a moron, thinking he could run the country without the trouble of that pesky "President" title. Probably ought to read your posts before you paste them....

Oh, and here is Sara's take on being the VP....

"They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, it takes a narrow mind to ask such a question, but I'll try to answer realistically......

How many people do you know that live in Ironton (I'm not an Ironton resident BTW) that work at AK Steel? Got laid off, but then returned to work? Why?

Because of the auto industry bail out, that's why. Without it, there would be hundreds of families without work, and probably defaulting on home loans. Local banks would feel the ripple effect of the loss, as well as local businesses.

So you see, its a broader answer than the simplified question you ask.

Another thing he has done is incentivized people to get energy smart, green up a little. Sure, this means nothing to you, but it IS progress.

Federal funding has allowed local schools to retain teachers that would have otherwise been let go.

Federal money has helped rebuild parts of our infrastructure, which is falling apart around us.

Unemployment benefits have been extended for those still struggling to find work.

A better question is, what have YOU done for your community? Why should the president be tasked with fixing OUR town? You guys profess keeping government out of our business, but sure do expect a bunch out of them. Pick a stance and stick with it. You guys are getting horribly wishy-washy. (Hope I didn't steal that from Palin)

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joe Biden was right...Cheney was definitely the scariest VP we have had. The Corporate VP. He made the position a money grab. Shame......

Posted by kce (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone correct me here if I'm wrong (I'm sure that goes without the asking) but I thought the new biz at Armco Steel was all Toyota! I don't recall the gov giving them a cent. From one who works for AK who relayed this to me, Toyota desires ONLY AK steel for their products.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And, its good to see you realizing that Cheney was a moron, thinking he could run the country without the trouble of that pesky "President" title. Probably ought to read your posts before you paste them....
----------------------------
Wow Jonferguson, your reading comprehension decreases by the minute. I quote something that the imbicile Biden says and for that now I think Cheney is a moron?

Since you quote Palin, using the jonferguson method of "logic", I can safely say you support her!

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where Palin said that there were no women in politics. Could that be because she never said it? As Joe Wilson correctly stated... YOU LIE!!!

Oh, and here is Sara's take on being the VP....

"They're in charge of the U.S. Senate...

Yes, she is correct. Per the constitution: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate"

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jonferguson

Joe Biden was right...Cheney was definitely the scariest VP we have had. The Corporate VP. He made the position a money grab. Shame......
-------------------------
Making stuff up again Jonferguson?

Posted by kce (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another thought about the auto industry bailout while I'm thinking about it; IF the government had given those millions of dollars that they gave to the Auto Makers to taxpaying citizens, the end result would be considerably more usable wealth across a wide populus of people who could have purchased new transportation - thus keeping the auto industry alive and well vs. as fattening the pockets of only a few once again. Very bad choice for the hard working middle class once again.

How man people Mr. Ferguson do you know who's vehicles have well over 100K on the odometer that would have loved to had that money to give to GM and Ford? I'm sure if your honest, you know more than a few!

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kce,

I won't argue that point. I agree that the money needed to go directly to the American consumers. However, if a democratic lead bill for that came up, the republicans would have shot it down in a second! That money has to be earmarked for big business! You know! Its "trickling down to us" Maybe it just hasn't made it to us yet.

Let's not forget that your buddy Dubya set this whole thing in motion.

As for the steel industry, what was the precipice for them shutting down plants, and laying off workers? Toyota have a bad month? Nope. It was the assumed and eminent collapse of the U.S. auto industry. Simply the scare of it made those companies react.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another fine example of Flailin' Palins' nonsense:

WASHINGTON -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lauded the virtues of the Constitution in her Tea Party Convention speech Saturday, but some of her claims appear markedly flawed. Reports over the weekend also challenged her account of recent history on national security and terrorism. http://rawstory.com/2010/02/palins-natio...

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, Noesis....Palin said that the VP was "In Charge" of the senate, and could get in there and make good policies. She is DEAD WRONG.

Article I of the Constitution establishes an exceptionally limited role for the Vice President — giving the office holder a vote only when the Senate is “equally divided”:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

Their only role in the senate is to vote during a tie....nothing more.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't understand why you guys feel compelled to defend such an airhead. Why can't you just admit she is a moron and move on?

Honestly, and with all sincerity, I think your best bet is Michael Steele. He stays under the radar for the most part, and really doesn't feed into the fearmongering as much. He would probably draw some ethnic votes, and seems to be rather level headed. The last thing the GOP needs is either (A) another dummy, or (B) a hotheaded fear monger. I think even the GOP is getting tired of it.

I'm by no means a straight party ticket voter. I weigh the options. But the direction the GOP is moving simply horrifies too much of America. I mean, I'm not the one who has labeled them the Party of No.

Seems to me that an independent may have a fighting chance this go round. The two party system is getting rather antiquated and stale. Its like if the NFL only had two teams. Who would care about THAT superbowl?

And while I'm on a tangent, and feeling a SLIGHT bit conservative :) I think that the Tebow commercial was at least tasteful, mainly because it was horribly vague. Don't agree with it, but at least it wasn't a big slap in the face. My only issue was, it kind of sounded like a "where would the world be without Tim?" kinda deal. Anybody else get that sense?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From an article....I think very poignant:

As for the specifics of Obama's indictment, Alito's defenders have said the president was wrong to say that the court's decision on corporate political spending had reversed "a century of law" and also opened "the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations." But Obama was not simply referring to court precedents but also to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate money in electoral campaigns. The court's recent ruling undermined that policy. Defenders of the decision also say it did not invalidate the existing legal ban on foreign political activity. What they don't acknowledge is that the ruling opens a loophole for domestic corporations under foreign control to make unlimited campaign expenditures.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jon,

Call Sarah what you want. You wouldn't vote for her anyway. Why should anybody on the right take your advice?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's not forget that your buddy Dubya set this whole thing in motion.
--------------------
I thought the democratically controlled Congress set it in motion... Bush signed it after confering with Obama to see if that's what he wanted.

Again, Noesis....Palin said that the VP was "In Charge" of the senate, and could get in there and make good policies. She is DEAD WRONG
--------------------------
So, even you admit that the VP is the PRESIDENT of the Senate? Sure sounds like if you're the President you're "in charge" and you can steer things... Otherwise, why not just say that they have no powers except casting a tiebreaking vote? Logic isn't one of your strong points jonferguson...

Hey, did you read article II section 8... Powers of Congress? Can you show me where Congress has the power to force us to buy health care?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This from your buddies at Faux news Noesis:

WASHINGTON — There is scant public support for President Bush's $700 billion federal rescue plan for the U.S. financial industry and little expectation it would solve the crisis that has roiled the markets and hobbled some of the country's largest investment firms, according to a poll released Friday.

Just 30 percent of Americans say they support Bush's package, according to an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released as White House and congressional leaders struggled to rescue the plan after House Republicans rebelled against it. Despite the president's pleas that the package is urgently needed to prevent an economic meltdown, 45 percent say they oppose Bush's proposal while 25 percent said they are undecided.

Underscoring the hesitancy members of Congress have shown to approve the plan quickly, opposition was solid across party lines. Fewer than four in 10 Republicans, three in 10 Democrats and one in 10 independents said they support the package.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any more lies you want to throw out there?

Oh, and then there is this:

The U.S. Senate website explains that the modern role of Vice Presidents has been to preside over the Senate “only on ceremonial occasions.” ThinkProgress contacted Senior Assistant Paliamentarian Peter Robinson, who also disputed Palin’s characterization of the Vice President’s role:

In modern practice the Vice President doesn’t really control the Senate. … If anyone has a responsibility to try to govern the Senate, it’s the responsibility of the two leaders
---------------------------------------------------

Your nonsense is getting pretty thick again Noesis....

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jonferguson

I don't understand why you guys feel compelled to defend such an airhead. Why can't you just admit she is a moron and move on?
----------------------------
And we told you that Obambi was a fraud and now we have proof. Why can't you just admit it?

And Rawstory jonferguson? You couldn't find anything from the normal MSM you had to use a news source that brags:

At the core, our goal is to unearth and spotlight stories underplayed by the popular press, in particular those which highlight betterment and open people’s eyes to injustice throughout the world.

Doesn't get much more liberal than that.

I read the story and it was so full of errors it was laughable!

For instance:

Palin also appeared to suggest Obama's actions led to North Korea testing nuclear weapons.

"Our president spent a year reaching out to hostile regimes, writing personal letters to dangerous dictators and apologizing for America, and what do we have to show for that?" she said. "North Korea tested nuclear weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles."

But North Korea became recognized as a nuclear nation in October 2006, before Obama was elected president, when it tested its nuclear capabilities, as the New York Times points out.
-------------------
What? Where does Sarah say that North Korea tested longer-range ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons for the first time?

She doesn't what she said was even though Obama played nice, it didn't get him anything, they still acted agressively.

That article was a desperate attempt to make her look bad. It didn't work.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But Obama was not simply referring to court precedents but also to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate money in electoral campaigns.
------------------------------------------------
No, the Tillman act prohibits monetary contributions.

'"An Act to prohibit corporations from making money contributions in connection with political elections. Be it enacted, That it shall be unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any corporation whatever to make a money contribution in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors or a Representative in Congress is to be voted for or any election by any State legislature of a United States Senator.
----------------
Making an ad isn't a monetary contribution. Corporations are still banned from giving money to canidates.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Any more lies you want to throw out there?
----------------
Are you talking about the $700 billion bill that Obama voted for?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Jonferguson, I'm still waiting for your proof that Palin said that there were no women in politics....

Any more lies you want to throw out there?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I was talking about the $700 billion BUSH bill. The one that he said was so urgent to rescue the financial system, that your republican cronies voted for.

Nobody has to make palin look bad...she does a fine job of it herself.

Tillman doesn't say "TO an election," it say "In CONNECTION with" an election.

I'm getting bored with proving you wrong. I think I'll watch some tv.....

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She didn't say there were no women in politics. Never did I say that. She basically implied that women have no place in politics.

Unless of course, the American public is buying you expensive clothing and jewelry

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The bailout plan has met with a cool reception in two days of hearings on Capitol Hill, where both Democrats and Republicans have expressed skepticism about the proposal drafted by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Why do those names sound so familiar???

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Listening to "Morning Joe" yesterday morning, I was surprised to hear Joe, of all people, show some guts about Sarah Palin. He thinks Republicans will finally have a leader when somebody shows up to challenge the Sarah Palin lunacy. That courageous person would risk losing the nutjob vote, but most Republicans would be relieved. They'd be respectable again.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah Palin's lunacy? A lot of people think that your so called "lunacy" is common sense ideas. Lunacy is the liberal agenda that Obama and democrats are trying to implement. How else to you explain his massive defection of independent voters? Obama's job-approval rating has tanked to a dismal 29 percent among independents

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/po...

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I take it back, after hearing their newest idea - turning social security over to Wall Street. Oh, please please make that a plank in the 2012 Republican platform. Give that shameless grabbiness a name. Imagine Wall Street handling those trillions, which are now managed at a cost of around 2%. No social security check has ever been a day late or a dollar short, folks. Older voters have already seen this for what it is when Dubyah tried to sell it. Social security and medicare aren't the problem. They're how Republicans propose to SOLVE the problem, at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. Look instead at three trillion dollars worth of unfunded wars. Noesis, "unfunded" is when you borrow money from China to give to your contractor pals, who immediately take 50% off the top. It's when the defense department can't account for missing billions. It's when you ship bales of borrowed money to Iraq and Afghanistan to bribe tribal leaders who are still for sale to the highest bidder the next day. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and it's not surprising that Republicans think we should even that out by yanking the rug out from under the elderly, the poor, the handicapped and sick. Shockah.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tillman doesn't say "TO an election," it say "In CONNECTION with" an election.

I'm getting bored with proving you wrong. I think I'll watch some tv....
----------------------------------
Hmmmm.. lets check with a neutral site:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

Campaign finance ruling on United Citizens is historical, but 100 years is a stretch

It's clear that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance reform, allowing corporations to spend as much as they like on their own political ads, marked a major reversal of current campaign law.

But according to leading Democrats, the ruling went much further than overturning recent law.

"With a stroke of a pen, the court decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures and override the will of millions of Americans who want their voices heard in our democracy," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Other Democrats echoed similar sentiments, that the Supreme Court has overruled more than a century of established law....

... Schumer said the Supreme Court "decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures." But he ignores the fact that the ban on direct donations from corporations to campaigns still exists. And the oldest law that specifically banned independent expenditures dated to 1947. You could also argue that we should be dating this from the 1970s campaign finance laws, or even the 1990 Austin case. So he's exaggerating the scope of the ruling and how long the laws have been on the books.
------------------------------

So in other words Jonferguson.... You're wrong AGAIN

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL Keta, I seem to remember when one guy suggests delaying Brown getting seated and you started screeching that it was only one person and we had to check with Obama and Reid. Now Paul Ryan comes up with an idea and all of a sudden it's "their newest idea"? Why the change in heart?

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And you're still a gullible doofus or a pathological liar, obviously. A Fox News poll - yep, Fox News - found last week that Obama would beat Sarah Palin by 24 points among independents. In fact, his numbers among independents jump skyward against any "hypothetical tea party" candidate. Whack jobs make people nervous, even if Fox chose not to publicize it. Or maybe the independents polled were history buffs with a sense of humor. The original tea partiers were rebelling against a multinational corporation - the East India Company, which was squeezing colonists out of the tea business. Ironic.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta, you know how people can tell you're lying? Your fingers are moving (on the keyboard). The cost of the war isn't $3 trillion, it's still less that $1 trillion per an anti-war site: http://costofwar.com/

And contractors take 50% off the top? Any proof of that or, you just making numbers up again?

Obambi has spent almost as much in one year in his stimulus packages as the almost 10 year war has cost.

An in regards to the "unfunded" wars, I'll give you the same question that Jonferguson was unwilling to answer. Please name one war that we went ahead and "funded" before getting into? (Sound of crickets chirping)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The original tea partiers were rebelling against a multinational corporation - the East India Company, which was squeezing colonists out of the tea business. Ironic.
-------------------------------------
No Keta there were some who protested it for that reason:

Protestors were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights. This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented.

Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business.
---------------------
But again, what was the prominent cause?:

"no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by keta

And you're still a gullible doofus or a pathological liar, obviously.
-------------------------
What? Because I show that independents are leaving Obambi in droves?

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No. Because the only information you have is from the right-wing blogosphere, where endless war is a fine idea and not expensive at all, and Sarah Palin is presidential material, and George Bush was a "misunderestimated" genius. Read a book, for God's sake. Look at the documentary "Rethinking Afghanistan". Filmmakers actually went there and talked to members of parliament, and Afghan soldiers, and Afghan citizens and people who are trying to help them. The documentary helped veterans dare to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about how much those wars really cost and what their effect really is. And you're wrong about the cost, even without projecting it into the future, which is where it gets really horrifying; military wives who've quit their jobs to care for spouses with debilitating injuries, or with PTSD so severe they're dangerous to others, the cost of caring for veterans, the cost of defending ourselves against the new enemies we're making every day, all of it, and all for an effort that keeps making us less safe. Heck of a job, Brownie.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And the right-wing blogosphere is where Obama's strong lead against anyone even remotely connected to teabaggers (especially if they're named Sarah Palin) is reported as a dismal tanking. They fudge the numbers. That's what they do; that's why they're there, to try to shape the perceptions of people who read the National Enquirer and buy lottery tickets instead of mutual funds. There's no way you haven't noticed this yourself as you attempt to share this baloney - you've been corrected a thousand times, yet you keep tossing it out there as if it were factual. Try reading something else.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta, the New York Post is hardly a "right-wing blogosphere". You just can't take the fact that Independents are leaving Obama in droves. This was even evident to CNN back in August:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Over the course of this summer, President Obama's approval ratings have plummeted among independent voters -- the largest and fastest-growing segment of the American electorate.

In May, 66 percent of independents approved of Obama's job performance, according to the Gallup Poll.

By August, Gallup showed the president was supported by 49 percent of independents, a collapse during the health care debate that reflects independents' dislike of deficit spending, the growth of big government and one-party control of Washington. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/a...

And here is your comment about the $3 trillion: "Look instead at three trillion dollars worth of unfunded wars. Noesis, "unfunded" is when you borrow money from China to give to your contractor pals..."

Sorry Keta but you're wrong. We have not borrowed $3 trillion from China for the war. No matter how bad you want to obfuscate.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the cost of defending ourselves against the new enemies we're making every day
--------------------------
What a silly, silly statement... but I've grown accustomed to those types of statements coming from you Keta.

What Muslim country had we invaded when OBL declared war on us? How about when they attacked the WTC the first time? The second? The U.S.S. Cole? The embassy bombings?

News flash for you Keta, they already hated us way before we invaded Iraq. Your feeble-minded attempts to place blame on republicans as to why they hate us is pretty pathetic and inaccurate.

Maybe you need to quit reading those moonbat liberal sites so you can get some factual information.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you've been corrected a thousand times, yet you keep tossing it out there as if it were factual.
-------------------------------------------------------
Keta, your "corrections" are things that you make up. They have nothing to do with the truth. And I use facts... you just refuse to admit that you are wrong. Just like your "Two million people a year declare bankruptcy do to medical bills" When the number of TOTAL bankruptcies a year are only 1.5 million.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis, if you knew anything about the New York Post, you'd understand why it's funny to say it's "hardly the right wing blogosphere". You probably have it confused with the Washington Post, which never gets voted "least credible" and doesn't have Rupert Murdoch at the helm. The three trillion dollar figure probably doesn't get much play in Wingnut World (although it's found on Wickipedia, the Times online, etc) so......it's a lie! The fact that 70% of Americans think Sarah Palin is unqualified for the presidency doesn't appear on Can't You See He's Colored dot com, so......it's a lie! Making stuff up! And Bush's unquestionable idiocy is responsible for the radicalization of countless muslims, but if you're convinced that all muslims are killers anyway...no prob! You're an idiot. It's worth remembering that the only member of that administration who ever wore a uniform - Colin Powell - was the only one who understood how it would end. Broke it, bought it.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jonferguson, it's easy to prove that your liberal sites lie.

Here's from your rawstory about Palin:

In her speech, Palin made numerous claims related to Obama, the constitution and terrorism.

"The [constitutional] protections provided," Palin said, "we’re going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and wants to destroy our Constitution and our country? This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we’re going to deal with the terrorists."

But a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Boumediene v. Bush, declared that alleged terrorists who aren't convicted of a crime -- irrespective of their citizenship -- have the constitutional right to have their case heard in federal court.
---------------------
That's not true:

Holder said at a press briefing that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other men, "accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks" will be prosecuted in federal court. Holder said that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and four other military detainees charged with the 2000 "terrorist attack on the USS Cole," will be prosecuted before a military commission. http://www.acslaw.org/node/14808

What? I thought Raw Story said it had to be in a federal court!!!

Whoops, looks like Sara was right... we have a choice to try them in Federal Court or by military commision.

Palin told the truth, Raw Story lied.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis,

Your "facts" are just crap that other people make up. That's my biggest complaint with your posts. You have no original thoughts. Anyone can read anything they want from other sources. We blog about our own thoughts and ideas. You are a puppet to the right wing machine

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where did Palin say anything about a military commission? What she was talking about was using some form of Bush era torture technique to get info out of the guy, who was already singing like a bird. She didn't have a CLUE what she was talking about, as usual. She is a complete moron, and MAN I hope she runs in 2012. Want to place wagers now?

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis's "facts" are also totally without context, which is how you know they're regurgitated wingnut website product. Obama's job approval plunges to record lows! Let's see - he began his second term at 50%, Reagan began his at 49%...... still, it's adorable when he and 79Tiger refer to Sarah Palin by her first name only, as though they have a close personal relationship with the Twitter Quitter. You just know they're going to send her a valentine.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And here is another Raw Story lie:

Referring to Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Palin said "[T]here are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer because he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. Constitutional right to remain silent. Our U.S. Constitutional rights."

"He was questioned for only 50 minutes," she added. "We have a choice in how to do this. The choice was only question him for 50 minutes and then read his Miranda rights."

This too, appears to have been false.
---------------------
False? Lets check and see what that viper's den of right wing extremism... the Washington Post says about the underwear bomber:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

...When Abdulmutallab was taken to the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor, he was met by FBI agents from the bureau's Detroit office, who, after consulting with doctors, determined Abulmutallab was lucid.

During a 50-minute interrogation, another federal source said, Abdulmutallab provided the FBI with key information, including where he was trained for the operation and who gave him nearly 80 grams of PETN, a volatile chemical often employed by the military...

... Agents again visited Abdulmutallab about 9 p.m., finding him more combative and allegedly citing jihadist intentions. He asked for a lawyer. FBI agents then read him his rights.
--------------------------------
Wow, Palin's account pretty much matches WaPo's account...

It sure is easy to prove that liberal sites constantly lie...

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Want to place wagers now?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the interest of full disclosure, Noesis predicted a McCain landslide.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis,

Your "facts" are just crap that other people make up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry but you have me confused with Keta. My facts come from verifiable sources.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My facts come from verifiable sources.
------------------
Whoops... unless I use a liberal site and then the numbers may be bogus.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the interest of full disclosure, Noesis predicted a McCain landslide.
-------------------------------------
And I seem to remember some liberals on here predicting victory for Coakley.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Want to place wagers now?
--------------------------------------
I still haven't collected from my liberal friends when Bush won in 2004. Liberals like making bets but never pay out.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

verifiable sources....sure....koolaid mouth ring shining through

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You probably have it confused with the Washington Post, which never gets voted "least credible" and doesn't have Rupert Murdoch at the helm.
--------------------------------------------
Now see, here you go again making stuff up!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We blog about our own thoughts and ideas. You are a puppet to the right wing machine
-----------------------------------------------
Riiiiiiight... right after you get your marching orders from bushisachimp.com, Puffingtonpost, Groveon.org, DailyKOs...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poor Jonferguson... don't like a story and you guys go digging to see if the author had a great uncle that voted republican so you can discredit the article...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jonferguson and Keta, like I've said before. Republican sites must be accurate or people will stop visiting them. Republicans unlike liberals are factual. Liberals think with their hearts... they don't care if the story is true, as long as it touches their heartstrings... It might not be true but... they can see how it could be.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

making stuff up

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Close out Be Very Afraid dot com for a few seconds and read about the New York Post. Rupert Murdoch owns it, it's famous for its conservative bias, and it polls "least credible" on a regular basis. And who predicted Pull 'Em Down would lose? He DESERVED to win, if only for putting it out there, pants-free.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberals think

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

........ and read whole articles, instead of skimming for support of some wingnut opinion. The Washington Post really is pretty unbiased. Notice how they point out that the two men arrested here and declared enemy combatants instead of going the legal system route have both refused to cooperate with interrogators. Notice how deftly they insert the information that the treatment the underwear bomber is receiving from the FBI and the Justice Department is identical to Bush administration protocols in the same situation......this flap is so bogus, unless you get your information from Jeb in 2012 dot com.....

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

....319 times. That's how many times terrorist suspects have been successfully tried in federal court. However, if it happens while Obama is president, well, that's different, right? If I were a New Yorker, I'd be eager to see KSM stagger up the courthouse steps in shackles and handcuffs, delighted to see him sentenced just a few blocks away from where people jumped from windows with their hair on fire. American justice is something we should be proud of - it's basically our whole deal. When did Americans get so scared, so unsure of ourselves that we're afraid we can't contain these thugs?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now Keta, we were talking about Raw Story saying fact checking Palin and saying that Palin lied when her statement matched up with what WaPo said. She didn't lie. Her basic facts were correct.

There have been 319 terrorists suspects that have been tried in Federal Court??? Riiiiiiiight, keep on drinking that kool-aide that Obambi puts out. When the justice department was questioned about the "300" number, they refused to submit a list of cases. Here's what they said:

As for whether the inmates’ crimes are comparable with those of high-value prisoners at Guantanamo, Weich responded, “A number of individuals with a history of, or nexus to, international or domestic terrorism are currently being held in federal prisons, each of whom was tried and convicted in a [civilian] court. The attorney general considers all crimes of terrorism to be serious.”

Oh, so included in that list is "domestic terrorism"... like some guy making pipe bombs...

Why don't you see if you can find that list of "319" Keta, nobody else sure can find it.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

it's famous for its conservative bias, and it polls "least credible" on a regular basis.
---------------

Yeah, least credible of newspapers of New York City... a City full of democrats. I wonder if we did a poll of the New York Times in say... Dallas Texas... If it came out that it was "least credible" can we start saying that the New York Times is the least credible newspaper in the nation?

And so what if it has a conservative bias? Does that mean that its facts are false? Of course not. The New York Times, WaPo, most other national newspapers, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS have liberal reporters and a liberal bias. Does that mean us conservatives can say anytime we want that we can disregard your facts just because it came from a liberal reporter?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Keta, even the New York Times admits it's liberal bias:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekin...

The Public Editor
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed....

.....Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right....

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

...And the Wall Street Journal lets its own "free" market, anti-science freak flag fly, guided by its owner, Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News. The New York Times doesn't have as many readers - it's unashamedly urban, not for everybody - but it sure gets its job done. Best moment - publishing the Pentagon papers, winning that Supreme Court battle against Nixon, back when the Supreme court championed citizens' rights to free speech. Good times.
Your belief that "republicans unlike liberals are factual" is right in line with your world view - republicans are factual, muslims are killers, immigrants are criminals. Republicans actually ARE dealing with facts in the manufactured dustup about the underwear bomber. That is, they're trying to obscure the fact that Obama is extremely competent at dealing with terrorists. More Taliban and al Qaeda leaders have been killed in the last year than in the entire period since 9/11. The underwear bomber is cooperating fully, and they didn't even torture him! They brought his family over to talk to him. Worked great. How refreshingly.....legal. And how typical, when Obama points out what everybody already knows - that using federal courts to deal with terror suspects is something the Bush administration did regularly - Republicans respond by saying, Some of them weren't really hard core! List them all by name! No wonder "Republican" has such negative connotations these days.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's interesting that while TV networks are corporate, the majority of people in the arts are liberal. There aren't many exceptions. Ben Stein. The Baldwin brother who isn't famous, I can never remember his name. Chuck Norris. Mel Gibson? Or is religion his only issue? All the funny people are liberal. You never hear conservative stand-up comedy about Obama, but Bush humor was an industry with a crowded field. There's no conservative equivalent of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Colbert began a segment about Mitch McConnell last night by showing a full-screen picture of him looking exactly like a turtle and saying "Human - tortoise hybrid Mitch McConnell said today...." When you think about it, it's a weird phenomenon; why aren't conservatives funny?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeez Keta, how do you fit so many lies in such a short space?

Do you have any proof that the WSJ is anti-science? Just because their views don't match yours, doesn't make them anti-science.

"The New York Times doesn't have as many readers - it's unashamedly urban"... In other words, nobody wants to read it anymore.

"Best moment - publishing the Pentagon papers, winning that Supreme Court battle against Nixon..."

Worst moment(s): Pulitzer winner Walter Duranty who's false reporting of the Russia famine earned calls for his Pulitzer to be revoked:

In his New York Times articles (including one published on March 31, 1933), Duranty repeatedly denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932–33. In an August 24, 1933 article in NYT, he claimed "any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda", but admitted privately to William Strang (in the British Embassy in Moscow on September 26, 1933) that "it is quite possible that as many as ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year.

And then there was Judith Miller's fine reporting... I don't think I have to remind you of her articles.

"muslims are killers": Yes, they are. Who do you think are doing all the terrorist acts? Jehovah Winesses? I didn't say all Muslims were killers but the majority of terrorist acts ARE performed by Muslims.

"immigrants are criminals": I never said immigrants are criminals... It's another one of your tries to have me say things I never did... like when you accused me of saying that blacks were the cause of our housing collapse.

What I said was ALL illegal immigrants are crimminal... Hint, hint... the word 'illegal". As in they came into this country illegally... therefore, yes when you willfully enter a country illegally, you are a criminal. Comprende Senioretta?

That gets back to the play on the liberal heartstrings... well, they just came here for work so their not reaaally criminals!!! Sorry, yes they are.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Republicans actually ARE dealing with facts in the manufactured dustup about the underwear bomber.
-------------------------------------------
Payback time...

Remember Macaca, missing high explosives, TANG, Dismissal of United States Attorneys, Plame, wiretapping, Downing Street memo, white phosporus use in Iraq...

All manufactured dustups...

We have a lot of catching up to do ;)

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The underwear bomber is cooperating fully, and they didn't even torture him! They brought his family over to talk to him
---------------------------------
Did you really want to bring up his family Keta? Wasn't it his dad who tried numerous times to warn us about his son? And yet, the Omama administration still allowed him to get on that plane....

"More Taliban and al Qaeda leaders have been killed in the last year than in the entire period since 9/11."

Nah, Bush killed over a hundred times more than Obama has (hey, if you can make stuff up, so can I. I at least admit it when I do it.)

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ha! Noesis, you don't know any more about the New York Times than you know about the New York Post. You don't read for information, you obviously just troll for ammunition. You googled "New York Times" and "scandal", or some other doofus combination until you came up with something that sounded bad. You don't know Walter Duranty from Jimmy Durante. Incidentally, nobody would have been happier to see his Pulitzer revoked than the Times, even though that would have reduced their Pulitzers to, let's see....an even 100. And anyone who can find factcheck.org and other consumer-oriented sites online must laugh out loud when you accuse others of making things up. Their list of thoroughly debunked rumors includes all your opinions on health care, the bailout, etc. Que est que c'est "Poser"?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you hear that Apple is coming out with a new product?

It's called the iBama. It's sleek, urban, sophisticated, modern, refined, high-functioning, cool and inspirational with seamlessly intregated superior text and visuals!

However, nobody has figured out if it can actually do anything.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As usual keta, you're wrong. I knew of Durante for many years... didn't remember his name so that I did have to google... Pulitzer Russia New York Times.

And speaking of Anti-science and liberal bias, here's a good article I found:

This week, the London Daily Telegraph newspaper uncovered further irregularities (in the IPCC report), including that statements in a supposedly authoritative report on climate change actually came from untested student dissertations that were never even published, and that other claims were based on reports from environmental pressure groups.

That comes on the heels of a forced retraction by the IPCC of its projections on the extent of glacial melting in the Himalayas. As it turns out, they were based on nothing more scientific than a student's observations published in a mountaineering magazine.

And last week, the institute revealed it had wrongly stated that half of the Netherlands was now below sea level. It turns out the IPCC researchers never bothered to double-check the accuracy of information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

It increasingly appears that the U.N. agency has placed its political agenda ahead of science and is willing to pass off shoddy research as fact. (sounds like anti-science to me)

Unfortunately, the IPCC's research drives policy, including in the United States.

The Columbia Journalism Review recently chided the American press for ignoring the scandals at the institute.
(Why would liberal reporters want to show serious flaws in something that is dear to their heart?)

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100210/...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"nobody would have been happier to see his Pulitzer revoked than the Times"
------------------------

Jeez, do you never stop making stuff up? What do you base that on? It sure has nothing to do with facts:

Arthur Sulzberger Jr, the paper's publisher, said this week that the paper had frequently acknowledged that Duranty's reporting was deeply flawed. But he said rescinding the prize might be seen as similar to the "Stalinist practice to airbrush purged figures out of official records and histories" and would set a dangerous precedent for revisiting prize-winning stories written in different eras.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...

Yeah it sure sounds like Sulzberger would have been "happy" to have the Pulitzer revoked.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wrong again. When the Pulitzer board started making noises about revoking the prize, the Times hired a professor of Russian history to review Duranty's work. He concluded that the honor of the New York Times required that Duranty lose his prize. The Times gave his findings to the Pulitzer board. No luck - he got to keep the prize.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew of Durante for many years

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fellow with whose work you're so familiar is Duranty. Durante was the comedian with the long nose. Not as long as yours, though, Pinocchio Boy.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"the Omama administration still allowed him to get on that plane"

Another moronically simplistic statement. Right...the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was charged with making sure some guy didn't get on a plane somewhere with something in his underwear. He should have been standing at that NSA checkpoint himself.

That's one of the dumbest...no wait....THE dumbest things I've heard you say Noesis....

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Although I have to admit...being a security guard would have been a great job for ol' Dubya. He would be the Paul Blart of Houston

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at noon (Suggest removal)

Keta, just because a reviewer of Duranty's work found that he was obviously lying didn't mean that the New York Times was "happy" to have it revoked. Arthur Sulzberger Jr statement to the board showed that he didn't want it revoked. So, you're the one who is wrong.

How does: "And yet, the Omama administration still allowed him to get on that plane....:

Morph into: "the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was charged with making sure some guy didn't get on a plane somewhere with something in his underwear. He should have been standing at that NSA checkpoint himself."

Did or did not the underwear bomber's dad go to the U.S. Embassy and warn them? Isn't our Nigerian Embassy part of the U.S. Government?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Although I have to admit...being a security guard would have been a great job for ol' Dubya.
-----------------------------
And it's to bad that Obambi wasn't "serving us coffee". He wouldn't be so dangerous then.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love that Obama scares you. That means change is happening....the more you guys whine, the more it proves that we are changing things...for the better. I love it

YOU are the one who said "the Obama administration" You made the assumption that the white house was somehow directly derelict because some guy got on a plane.
There will never be a way to stop these things from happening completely. You can't strip search every passenger everywhere in the world. That's insane.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't drink coffee, thanks.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YOU are the one who said "the Obama administration" You made the assumption that the white house was somehow directly derelict because some guy got on a plane.
---------------------------
Hey, I'm just playing by your rules. The CIA gave bad info on WMD but all we here from you guys is that "Bush lied". What's good for the goose...

That means change is happening....
------------
Like health care? Cap and trade? Card check? Has Obama healed the earth yet and stopped the seas from rising?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama didn't declare a senseless war on a nation under false pretenses and spend billions of dollars due to it. BIG difference.

Keep fretting...make me proud to be an American....love it....

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

False pretenses? You mean the ones that democrats were making?

If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me. John Kerry

Hey keta, did you hear that the New York times is now anti-science?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/scienc...

...Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm--or even a season's worth of storms--to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate.
----------------------------

"scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate."

WHAT!!!! I thought the science was "settled" !! Keta, burn that heretic at the stake and then write a letter to the editor to get him fired (after he burns at the stake of course). Johnferguson, your mission is to find out how this obvious republican plant got on the staff of the NY Times. Dig up as much dirt on him as you can. See if he has any grandparents who ever voted for a republican. He must be smeared!!!

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its funny that you post that garbage on here, and then try to say that these media sources are biased. Seems to me, they allow just about any view point in their pages. Still trying to slant them as liberal? If you profess that this article is true, then the rest of the articles in the times must be also, right?

Like maybe, this one:

After a U-turn in the politics of poverty, food stamps, a program once scorned as “welfare,” enjoys broad new support. Following deep cuts in the 1990s, Congress reversed course to expand eligibility, cut red tape and burnish the program’s image, with a special effort to enroll the working poor. These changes, combined with soaring unemployment, have pushed enrollment to record highs, with one in eight Americans now getting aid.

“I’ve seen a remarkable shift,” said Senator Richard G. Lugar, an Indiana Republican and prominent food stamp supporter. “People now see that it’s necessary to have a strong food stamp program.”

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 11, 2010 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Still trying to slant them as liberal?
--------------------------
Wow, the NY Times admit's it's liberal and you say "Still trying to slant them as liberal"? Jeez Forrest, what part of :
-----
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is....

-----------
Don't you understand?

And what am i supposed to agree with about the NY Times article? Because one RINO gives his support it must be true? If that's the case, I'm sure that I can come up with a democratic congressman who was against government run health care... does that mean you have to agree with him too?

Did you have a point to make?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 12, 2010 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Its funny that you post that garbage on here...
-------------------------
It's funny that you think things that I post are garbage... just because you don't agree with them. You can't fight facts so you just attempt to smear the source... regardless if every word of the article is true.

See, when it comes to bias in the news, hardly anybody ever lies. They just omit things or don't talk about them if they view it negatively or, they bring up things that show what they believe. A good example of bias by Fox news would be when they didn't show the daily death count of the Iraq war. An example of bias by liberal media would be the lack of coverage that the numerous errors that are being found in the IPCC climate change report.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 12, 2010 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nobody lies in the news? Really? Hmmmm.....I better start posting some articles then. You can't argue them now, right?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 18, 2010 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow Noesis....looks like you're wrong again:

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."