The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on October 22, 2009, 08:34:25 AM
-
Saying what Dear Leader wants them to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbELSIImfZI
Dear Leader equates FOX News to talk radio and in doing so says they are not a real news organization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LHeJM4A2Ig
-
He should be losing sleep. I don't know how the POS can look in the mirror. Fox reports what other networks refuse to or choose tio ignore. Bho makes me sick to my stomach. The tide is finally turning. His days are numbered.
-
"Dear Leader" is a spoiled F##king Brat! I have never seen a puppet in his position whine as much as he does. Anytime he doesn't get his way it's always the "evil tea parties" or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck. I am getting very weary of the town hall meetings and the apology tours, all berating and belittling the people of this country.
I think that history will show BHO as the worst president in American history. Single handedly weakening our nation (maybe to the point that we may not recover) and setting race relations back 50 years. His job performance has been so poor, that people who supported him are turning on him in droves. He shattered the "glass ceiling" by becoming the first African American in the White house, and look where it got us.
A terrible recession, made far worse by "the ones" efforts to fix it. More Csars than Russia ever had. People in the White House dictating to private companies how much they can compensate their employees? WTF. Here's an idea, how about we start dictating to Congress how much THEY can be compensated. Congress being the only place in history where the employee, and not the employer, sets the pay scale.
What I fear is a violent backlash. Poll after poll shows that the American people (as a majority, regardless of party affiliation) oppose nearly every bill and reform that this administration has tried to pass. When we express this, we are marginalized, demonized, or just outright ignored. The White House is attempting to make Fox news an example to the rest of us. If you oppose us, you will be punished. I will support Fox news and talk radio in every way I can, as I feel they are the ONLY sources for reasonably accurate reporting, and ratings would suggest that I am not the only one who feels that way.
Apologies for the drift.
-
JC,
Of course he's a spoiled brat. Nobody's ever stood up to him before. He's always been surrounded by liberals that were either so amazed with his amazingness that they just followed along, or people that were afraid of the "r" word that they toed the line as instructed. Or the third category of fellow radicals that agreed with him anyway, so I guess 3 types of people. The man doesn't know how to deal with opposition, and can't comprehend why anyone wouldn't agree with him.
It's also a fairly common Statist tactic of having an external "enemy" to keep the base energized and focused on hating some outside force. That way the workers/peasants don't look and see that the king is really the one screwing them over.
Thankfully, we still live in a Republic where we can vote. I wouldn't worry about violent backlash, at least not yet. I think a LOT of people in DC are going to find themselves with no job come 2010.
His Royal Majesty and his court have to marginalize, demonize and discredit Fox News, talk radio, and all opposition because they can't win an argument based on facts. They know it. They know the numbers do not and will not add up, so they work to destroy the people trying to do the math. Just like Mao(he's pretty popular amongst the Administration's higher ups, isn't he?) did during the "Great Leap Forward."
-
Thankfully, we still live in a Republic where we can vote.
We will see if that statement is still true come next election
-
We will see if that statement is still true come next election
While I haven't lost my faith in "the system", I believe that for the ONE vote that I cast, there are probably at least two fraudulent votes in the opposite direction. When will we start to require a picture ID to vote. The argument is that it discriminates against certain voters, by not allowing them to exercise their RIGHT.
Ok, so why do I have to produce a picture ID and fill out endless forms in order to buy a firearm? Doesn't this discriminate me from exercising MY RIGHT?
I guess my point here is that if we are going to regulate rights here, shouldn't the same standards apply to all of them?
And I know you are going to go all "Professor" on me FQ, so before you start digging your inevitable hole, realize that I am asking a rhetorical question.
-
12 Million Messkins can't be wrong but apparently they are going to vote to.
-
Land owners only should vote. At the very least if you are on the dole you should NOT be allowed to vote!
-
And I know you are going to go all "Professor" on me FQ, so before you start digging your inevitable hole, realize that I am asking a rhetorical question.
In other words, Quaker....... NO ONE wants to here your nuanced, academic, doesnt have any real world application, fully devoid of all common sense, lefty diatribe....... So please remember that its better to be thought a fool....... SHUT YOUR HOLE!
-
Land owners only should vote. At the very least if you are on the dole you should NOT be allowed to vote!
Taxpayers should only have the right to vote.
If taxation without representation is wrong, isnt representation without taxation equally wrong ???
-
Taxpayers should only have the right to vote.
If taxation without representation is wrong, isnt representation without taxation equally wrong ???
Comment of the day!!!!!
-
There are a fare few small business owners that do not pay any taxes as they don't make the threshold (especially in the first year or two). What of those type of people?
-
There are a fare few small business owners that do not pay any taxes as they don't make the threshold (especially in the first year or two). What of those type of people?
Ok fine, exception. But you are still talking about CONTRIBUTING members of society.
-
There are a fare few small business owners that do not pay any taxes as they don't make the threshold (especially in the first year or two). What of those type of people?
They should not have a vote. Just like people on welfare or unemployment should not have a vote. If you dont pay taxes in a given year, then why should you have a say in how they are used. If you arent helping to pay for the system, then you should not have a voice in how the system is run.
*However, its not that simple.... they are probably paying payroll taxes and perhaps taxes on property plant and equipment.... and you have to look at if the owner is drawing a salary or not......... its not just about taxes on their profits..... but maybe it should be.... it would bring an end to some of the creative accounting that is out there.
-
They should not have a vote. Just like people on welfare should not have a vote. If you dont pay taxes in a given year, then why should you have a say in how they are used. If you want to paying taxes into the system, then you should not have a voice in how the system is run.
*However, its not that simple.... they are probably paying payroll taxes and perhaps taxes on property plant and equipment.... its not just about taxes on their profits..... but maybe it should be.... it would bring an end to some of the creative accounting that is out there.
Eric, You honestly want to take away the vote from a person that is self employed and may even provide jobs to a others simply because the tax code is written in such a way that he did not pay taxes? How about farmers (or any business) that have a loss that year so large that it wipes their tax debt out? These are hard working people, not on the dole, trying their best to make a business!
-
Eric, You honestly want to take away the vote from a person that is self employed and may even provide jobs to a others simply because the tax code is written in such a way that he did not pay taxes? How about farmers (or any business) that have a loss that year so large that it wipes their tax debt out? These are hard working people, not on the dole, trying their best to make a business!
Its the exact same thing as the whole land owners only concept. The idea being that you protect the country from those people whose only reason for voting is to procure entitelments. Thats why the founding fathers made it a requirement to own land. Back then thats who the productive members of society were. They werent trying to disenfranchise anyone or oppress anyone.
I just personally think that requiring people to be contributors to the tax revenues would be a more viable choice in today's society. Why would you want to exclude people who live in a rented apartment or rented home.... it would exclude a lot of the elderly, single people, and many other hard working Americans. You could also nit-pick it into "well they are paying on a mortgage, but they dont technically own their home yet, so....."
I also think that it gets closer to the root cause of the problem that is plaguing our country......... What are ya gonna give me if I elect you?
-
They should not have a vote. Just like people on welfare or unemployment should not have a vote. If you dont pay taxes in a given year, then why should you have a say in how they are used. If you arent helping to pay for the system, then you should not have a voice in how the system is run.
*However, its not that simple.... they are probably paying payroll taxes and perhaps taxes on property plant and equipment.... and you have to look at if the owner is drawing a salary or not......... its not just about taxes on their profits..... but maybe it should be.... it would bring an end to some of the creative accounting that is out there.
I own land.
I am unemployed.
I pay taxes.
Therefore I don't vote just because some asshole in CA can't run his business right? Bite me. Wrong here Eric.
-
Which is why I say instead of saying who can vote (other than MUST be a provable citizen) it is easier to say who CANNOT vote, eg "anyone receiving welfare cannot vote". (unemployment is not welfare, you paid into it)
-
I own land.
I am unemployed.
I pay taxes.
Therefore I don't vote just because some asshole in CA can't run his business right? Bite me. Wrong here Eric.
You pay taxes... get in line and vote.
If someone continues to remain on the govt dime to the point where they are not paying taxes and are only taking money from the govt then they can not vote.... if they dont like it they can get a source of income, start paying takes and vote.
Which is why I say instead of saying who can vote (other than MUST be a provable citizen) it is easier to say who CANNOT vote, eg "anyone receiving welfare cannot vote". (unemployment is not welfare, you paid into it)
Also accomplishes the same thing. I just think that if people are not shouldering the responsibility for paying for running this country then they should not be able to say how the money is spent.
-
The vote can not be limited to "property owners" , To many tax payers and business owners are housed in RENTED properties.
Vote can not be denied to people who work hard but don't make enough to pay taxes.
EVERY ONE pays taxes whether it is sales tax, gas tax or whatever, EVERYONE pays SOMETHING. If you try to approach the problem from the question of who CAN vote you wind up with something as f-cked up as the current tax code.
Haz has the answer, if you are on Welfare, food stamps, heating assistance, or any other "Aid program" or you are not a citizen you go to jail or get deported for entering a polling place during an election.
-
The vote can not be limited to "property owners" , To many tax payers and business owners are housed in RENTED properties.
Vote can not be denied to people who work hard but don't make enough to pay taxes.
EVERY ONE pays taxes whether it is sales tax, gas tax or whatever, EVERYONE pays SOMETHING. If you try to approach the problem from the question of who CAN vote you wind up with something as f-cked up as the current tax code.
Haz has the answer, if you are on Welfare, food stamps, heating assistance, or any other "Aid program" or you are not a citizen you go to jail or get deported for entering a polling place during an election.
Ill vote for that legislation
-
Back on subject......
White House tries to bar Fox News from interviewing pay czar:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/22/its-come-to-this-white-house-tries-to-bar-fox-news-from-interviewing-pay-czar/
-
It's terrifying that they even thought they could get away with it! If they are TRYING this in front of us what are they DOING to us (and the US) behind closed doors!?
-
There is no way that votes will rid us of this problem, the traitors and scumbags are to deeply entrenched in the system.
The only effective solution is mass executions.
-
Tough crowd ::)
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/22/nyt-obama-whined-about-fox-news-at-off-the-record-briefing-with-lefty-pundits/
Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of columnists and commentators, including Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times, President Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the network, according to people briefed on the conversation…
Mr. Clemente suggested that the fight with Fox was part of a larger White House strategy to marginalize critics. He cited a report in Politico about a strategy session in August at which officials discussed plans to move more aggressively against opponents.
White House officials acknowledged that Fox News did come up at that meeting, although not, they said, as a central topic. A number of issues had been added to the White House’s list of grievances by then, including the network’s heavy coverage of some of the more heavily anti-administration commentary at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
-
FTA;
Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of columnists and commentators, including Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times, President Obama himself
I bet the floor was sticky when those butt lickers left.
-
FTA;
Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of columnists and commentators, including Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times, President Obama himself
I bet the floor was sticky when those butt lickers left.
Hell, I bet Olbermann just wore a blue dress.....
-
More great reading on this:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTNhZGQxYzVmMjU4NjY3NTIwMWFjMDQ0ZjJlODM0MzA=
Fox Wars
The Obama administration wants to delegitimize any significant dissent.
By Charles Krauthammer
Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he’s put a horse’s head in Roger Ailes’s bed.
Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn’t scare easily.
The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is “opinion journalism masquerading as news.” Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox “not really a news station.” And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to “be led (by) and following Fox.”
Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration — from exposing White House czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 “truther” to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health-care legislation — the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.
The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry — finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.
At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House “pool” news organizations — except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.[/b]
This was an important defeat because there’s a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they’re engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
There’s nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.
Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties.” They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other — and an otherwise imperious government.
Factions should compete, but also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize, and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.
But didn’t Teddy Roosevelt try to destroy the trusts? Of course, but what he took down was monopoly power that was extinguishing smaller independent competing interests. Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be comical — and that doesn’t even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.
Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN’s and MSNBC’s combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN — which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a Saturday Night Live skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?
Defend Fox from whom? Fox’s flagship 6 o’clock evening news out of Washington (hosted by Bret Baier, formerly by Brit Hume) is, to my mind, the best hour of news on television. (Definitive evidence: My mother watches it even on the odd night when I’m not on.) Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She’s been attacked for extolling Mao’s political philosophy in a speech at a high-school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one’s own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?
The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?
-
There used to be a term, Uppity something or other.
It applies to these overpriced servants. The nurses aid who changes bed pans is a lot more helpful and a hell of a lot less expensive.