FOX has some pretty hawt chicks.
She ain't one of them.

Bad analogy.

Tying someone to a bed is not strictly forbidden by the Constitution. The bill of attainder, on the other hand, is.

Then don't get in bed with Uncle Sam, idiot. No one FORCED them to take the bail out money.

All welfare is means tested. No reason that corporate welfare shouldn't be.

"You don't want to think if you get in bed with Uncle Sam he's going to strip you naked, chain you to the bed, leave you there and then take nasty pictures of you and then put them on the internet."

I like the way she thinks.

DarthBrooks: "You don't want to think if you get in bed with Uncle Sam he's going to strip you naked, chain you to the bed, leave you there and then take nasty pictures of you and then put them on the internet."

I like the way she thinks.

I'm almost there... almost there.


Does he spank me? Tell me he spanks me like a naughty little slut!

You know, I wonder what Fox News would say if Bush was the one taxing the bonuses?

Or if Clinton was NOT taxing the bonuses?

I think Fox News is just picking the opposite position of liburls to piss people off.

I say we start becoming anti-Cake just to piss them off.

what_now: Then don't get in bed with Uncle Sam, idiot. No one FORCED them to take the bail out money.

Well, when the alternative is the dissolution of your company...

Nobody FORCED the government to give AIG bailout money either, though when the alternative is the destruction of your economy...

It's just a bad rap all around.

MBK: I say we start becoming anti-Cake just to piss them off.

Cake can't be a lie, I just had some yesterday!

McDowell... Kinda cute. Wouldn't kick her outta my bed on a Monday night.

Haha. I really have to commend the guy who responded to that by smirking like a teenager and promising to see her later. Really screamed integrity, if I've ever seen integrity on Fox.

what_now: Then don't get in bed with Uncle Sam, idiot. No one FORCED them to take the bail out money.

News articles have indicated that multiple banks were, in fact, directed to take TARP money that they didn't want, in order to ensure that taking TARP money didn't function as the stench of death and generate bank runs on those that did need the money. This has been reported in the Guardian, in the NYT, the WSJ, et al, in links that have been reposted repeatedly in Fark threads due to ignoramuses like yourself. This is also consistent with multiple executives of various institutions recently reiterating that they did not want the TARP money and intended to repay it as fast as the regulators and Congress will let them, in order to avoid any more random impositions, even if this means that they will therefore have less money to lend and that this ends up tightening the credit markets.

Is Sam her mother's brother or her father's?

/oh, it makes a difference!

She doesn't know what she's talking about.

Looking at the tax code, it's pretty clear Uncle Sam is more into anal, and it's state governments who dig the bondage.

I always thought she was cute. She talks about mutual funds or something.

/Wasn't really listening

How vapid does one have to be to argue the merits of her comment rather than recognize the absurdity of the scripted spectacle that is Fox News.

Seriously people, wake up to the fact that the entire operation is possibly the most genius network in the history of cable broadcasting. Rupert is the king of trolling.

Look around you. Fox News hasn't broadened the appeal of conservatism. It exists and thrives for two reasons: to act as an ideological pacifier to the simple minded, and to serve as an irritant to the easily butthurt.

I see this as a price you pay for institutions who are "too big to fail" and need help. Our unwillingness to see the dangers inherent in huge international conglomerates and consolidation of wealth is biting us on the ass. There's a reason monopolies are frowned upon.
Oh sure there are only things that the big guys can do. But imo those things should be nationalized if national security is so dependent on them. An international conglomerate might not always have your people's well being as their first priority.

The End is Near: HUGE WHARRGARBL

Yes, how's that strategy working out for you?

The Clintons pretty much ignored the right wing and got royally skewered for it.
(As an aside, I'm not sure they didn't deserve a fair amount of it, but I digress.)

Here's a hint. Never, EVER, allow the other side to dictate or monopolize the discussion, the sheep will repeat and believe the last thing they heard without fact checking it.

You don't ignore trolls and bullies, you stand up to them and expose them for what they are, cowards, liars and morons. If you do it correctly you get all the people in the middle to realize that the bully's message is a lie that they need to reject.

Didn't you learn anything from the last elections?

Oh and thanks for the attention whoring Big and Bold, you really know how to accentuate your message.

WillieStokes: How vapid does one have to be to argue the merits of her comment rather than recognize the absurdity of the scripted spectacle that is Fox News.

Seriously people, wake up to the fact that the entire operation is possibly the most genius network in the history of cable broadcasting. Rupert is the king of trolling.

Look around you. Fox News hasn't broadened the appeal of conservatism. It exists and thrives for two reasons: to act as an ideological pacifier to the simple minded, and to serve as an irritant to the easily butthurt.

Apparently you are in the latter category.

The thing about Fox is that it is OBVIOUSLY about 75% conservative on the opinion side. I mean you've got Colmes and ? holding up the liberal end. The devil you know is better than the one in disguise.

But outlets like MSNBC and CBS and even CNN are insidious, because they are anywhere from 60-90% left wing in their opinion pieces, yet pretend to cut across the political spectrum. And so many newspapers have been suborned by the left, without open acknowledgment, that it's a sad spectacle.

Take the New York Times, whose editorial page is a joke now. They've run out all the real conservative columnists, all that left are moderates, and even though are barely tolerable to the editorial staff.

The left seeks to refine the center as left by brainwashing the public into thinking that "progressive" is the new middle.

That's how all these ridiculous proposals with massive deficit spending are being taken seriously. The Obamatrons are bringing us socialist spending and taxing policies under a different name, but even some in Europe are gawking at what they're plotting in the white house. Just don't call it socialism.

Animatronik: The Obamatrons are bringing us socialist spending and taxing policies under a different name, but even some in Europe are gawking at what they're plotting in the white house. Just don't call it socialism.

You know, if your political leanings are so far to the right of center that you think the United States even has a functional liberal representation, I'll bet everything does look Socialist to you.

At first I thought of you as a kneejerk lunatic but gradually learned that you have quite a bit on the ball. This post you just made makes me want to revisit that decision.

Fox News is conservative?

With shows like Glenn Beck screaming that we are going to have a civil war and the military is going to side with the rabid right wing to overthrow the government?

Are you kidding me?

I have a lot of admiration for conservatives - and I'm not seeing one of them being featured on Fox.
You can and should do better than that, you have it in you and you need to before there is no opposition party.

Animatronik: I mean you've got Colmes and ? holding up the liberal end.

Umm...they got rid of Colmes...and it turns out Colmes was actually reining in Hannity. The thought that he was actually more insane than he seemed with Colmes there was revealing.

Animatronik:
Apparently you are in the latter category.

The thing about Fox is that it is OBVIOUSLY about 75% conservative on the opinion side. I mean you've got Colmes and ? holding up the liberal end. The devil you know is better than the one in disguise.

But outlets like MSNBC and CBS and even CNN are insidious, because they are anywhere from 60-90% left wing in their opinion pieces, yet pretend to cut across the political spectrum. And so many newspapers have been suborned by the left, without open acknowledgment, that it's a sad spectacle.

Take the New York Times, whose editorial page is a joke now. They've run out all the real conservative columnists, all that left are moderates, and even though are barely tolerable to the editorial staff.

The left seeks to refine the center as left by brainwashing the public into thinking that "progressive" is the new middle.

That's how all these ridiculous proposals with massive deficit spending are being taken seriously. The Obamatrons are bringing us socialist spending and taxing policies under a different name, but even some in Europe are gawking at what they're plotting in the white house. Just don't call it socialism.

I'm unsure what is more amusing about the above screed. I'm torn between its utter absurdity, its repeated use of percentages ripe with rectum freshness, and the ridiculous notion that you might find your own whargarble prescient and/or comprehensible.

Oh, who cares which aspect offers more hilarity. I'll just thank you for it and let it stand as a whole work of comedy.

WillieStokes: I'm unsure what is more amusing about the above screed. I'm torn between its utter absurdity, its repeated use of percentages ripe with rectum freshness, and the ridiculous notion that you might find your own whargarble prescient and/or comprehensible.

Oh, who cares which aspect offers more hilarity. I'll just thank you for it and let it stand as a whole work of comedy.

The above response is more "wharragarbl!...butthurt...wharrgarbl!....butthurt!" brought to you by the "if I only had a brain" constituency of the democratic party, which is long on whining and short on comprehension of the consequences of what Obama wants to do. Which may be why "wharrgarbl" is all they have to say. Which is ironic, considering what it means to them.

what_now: Then don't get in bed with Uncle Sam, idiot. No one FORCED them to take the bail out money.

My thought is that she is referring to the likelihood of new investors joining up for the bailout possibilities. Having after-the-fact-screw-you's to the AIG contractual bonuses doesn't ease the mind of people that are WANTED to help mollify the government burden in the bailout.
Would you hold meetings with someone that's been busted for pissing in the coffee?

Neeek: Animatronik: I mean you've got Colmes and ? holding up the liberal end.

Umm...they got rid of Colmes...and it turns out Colmes was actually reining in Hannity. The thought that he was actually more insane than he seemed with Colmes there was revealing.

Ok, I admit it, I'm not a regular Fox watcher. I read the Washington Post every morning. I give them credit for having Krauthammer and Will to hold the conservative end, especially Will.

Random Reality Check:
I have a lot of admiration for conservatives - and I'm not seeing one of them being featured on Fox.
You can and should do better than that, you have it in you and you need to before there is no opposition party.

If you want to understand what conservatism is really about, see George Will. I don't watch Fox, and I'm not a big Hannity fan. But you've got an assortment of similar characters on the left that I would like ot watch even less - like Carville, Begala, even John Stewart when he forgets he's a comedian. So pointing to cartoon characters on one side and ignoring the ones on the other doesn't prove anything. There are still Bill Buckley's out there, you just have to choose to pay attention to the right opinions instead of the one getting shouted out.

And liberalism's not getting represented? I don't know what planet you live on, but the percentage of GDP being spent on social programs under Obama will go way beyond anything ever envisioned in U.S. history. You guys seems to think that ignoring the facts will somehow change the center of the debate. Nothing's changed, only the way you choose to describe it. We have a leftist government more like the European left than anything in the U.S. since WWII.

There are no finer newshotties than Robin Meade.

Epic sweater puppies.

MBK:
I say we start becoming anti-Cake just to piss them off.

So you're saying we should become pro-Death then?

Because that's your two choices... Cake or Death!

a_room_with_a_moose 2009-03-25 06:56:11 AM
There are no finer newshotties than Robin Meade.

Epic sweater puppies.

Thank you for bringing this thread back to where it belongs...

Animatronik:

The above response is more "wharragarbl!...butthurt...wharrgarbl!....butthurt!" brought to you by the "if I only had a brain" constituency of the democratic party, which is long on whining and short on comprehension of the consequences of what Obama wants to do. Which may be why "wharrgarbl" is all they have to say. Which is ironic, considering what it means to them.

Fine. Let's deconstruct your amusing offering:

The thing about Fox is that it is OBVIOUSLY about 75% conservative on the opinion side. I mean you've got Colmes and ? holding up the liberal end. The devil you know is better than the one in disguise.

This gem of a paragraph does nothing more than describe how you feel about self-fabricated percentages concerning something you label the "opinion side" of the Fox News enterprise. While you may consider this an "obvious" conclusion, I can guarantee the majority of people reading it have no idea what the fark you are referring to. (BTW, The boisterous, balancing voice of Alan Colmes left the network months ago.

But outlets like MSNBC and CBS and even CNN are insidious, because they are anywhere from 60-90% left wing in their opinion pieces, yet pretend to cut across the political spectrum. And so many newspapers have been suborned by the left, without open acknowledgment, that it's a sad spectacle.

This clumsily worded rejoinder further showcases your penchant for pulling percentages from your posterior and displaying them like a first grader proudly presenting a macaroni and glitter family portrait to his mother. To frost this shiatcake of an assertion, you decorate it with both a "liberal media conspiracy" fallacy and a farcical notion that newspaper owners are merely induced or coerced actors in a choreographed leftist propaganda system.

Take the New York Times, whose editorial page is a joke now. They've run out all the real conservative columnists, all that left are moderates, and even though are barely tolerable to the editorial staff.

I'm gathering from this unquantifiable and emotional postulation that you were upset that Kristol was replaced.

The left seeks to refine the center as left by brainwashing the public into thinking that "progressive" is the new middle.

The tinfoil is strong with you. The political strategy of self-identification with the center is nothing new or unique to either party. The fact that the center moved to the left last November isn't the result of mind control. While there were many reasons for the shift, I promise you none of them had anything to do with "brainwashing."


That's how all these ridiculous proposals with massive deficit spending are being taken seriously. The Obamatrons are bringing us socialist spending and taxing policies under a different name, but even some in Europe are gawking at what they're plotting in the white house. Just don't call it socialism.

I want to take a moment and return to an earlier theme by begging you to take a writing course. Perhaps your first essay subject could concern the definition of socialism.

Having said that, I really don't know how to respond to whatever point you are trying to make here. The "socialist" premises are ridiculous both in regard to taxing (new window) and spending (new window). When viewed in thecontext of both observable socialist societies and our own national precedents, your label of "socialist" begs for the words of Inigo Montoya.

I guess I'll just summarize my opinion of your last flailing attempt at profundity by comparing it to your amusingly manufactured anecdote of "some" Europeans' views. They are equally silly.

/You are silly.

McDowell: "You don't want to think if you get in bed with Uncle Sam he's going to strip you naked, chain you to the bed, leave you there and then take nasty pictures of you and then put them on the internet."

I wonder if former Philadelphia Eagles coach Ray Rhodes is writing for Fox News? My favorite Rayism after a defeat:

"It's like you walk up and catch people burglarizing your house, and they probably sodomized your wife and kids, and we didn't do anything about that."

Now all they need to do is replace JOE the plumber with JO the plumber...



...and we're all set!

flannelled fool:

"It's like you walk up and catch people burglarizing your house, and they probably sodomized your wife and kids,"

Well, of course one has to assume that most burglars are sodomizing child rapists. This is especially likely if said children lose their focus during the game and don't give 110%.

OldRod: MBK:
I say we start becoming anti-Cake just to piss them off.

So you're saying we should become pro-Death then?

Because that's your two choices... Cake or Death!

"You. Cake or death?"

"Death, please... NO! Cake, cake, sorry."

"You said death first. Death first."

"No, I meant cake."

"Oh, all right.




/We're going to run out of cake at this rate...

Fox News is about as legitimate as the father of octomom's children.

I love the tagline they've got under her while she talks dirty to the Fox viewers: DEVELOPING... GOVT NOW ONLY HAS THE POWER TO SEIZE BANKS.

The "developing" implies future expansion of government power that currently can "only" seize banks. Goebbels would be proud.

Who can trust the word of anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die ?

equilibrium: I love the tagline they've got under her while she talks dirty to the Fox viewers: DEVELOPING... GOVT NOW ONLY HAS THE POWER TO SEIZE BANKS.

The "developing" implies future expansion of government power that currently can "only" seize banks. Goebbels would be proud.

Drudge was teasing on this story a couple days ago:

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document. more

Well, if she's into that kind of thing, I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will oblige.

Animatronik: If you want to understand what conservatism is really about, see George Will.

Not quite a Bill Buckley but I agree with what you're trying to say. However, while he is what I would consider to be a conservative, he is not the voice of the Republican Party nor are his views echoed on Fox News or by the right wing noise machine.

Animatronik: I don't watch Fox, and I'm not a big Hannity fan.

I'm certainly not a Fox News fan but I do keep up with what they are saying - and I would encourage you to do so as well. These people are robbing you of a voice in the political process. Seriously.

Animatronik: But you've got an assortment of similar characters on the left that I would like ot watch even less - like Carville, Begala, even John Stewart when he forgets he's a comedian.

I loathe Carville and really don't like Begala but neither of them reach anywhere near the assholerific proportions that Hannity hits on a regular basis.

Like I said, you need to watch.

Now, Jon Stewart is another breed altogether and I actually like him. While he does the comedy thing (which I only find funny sometimes) his commentary is pretty damn biting sometimes and does hit home. He handed Cramer his ass, (well-deservedly too, I might add) nailed Dick Cheney to the wall using his own words and oftentimes has come out of character, like the appearance he made on Crossfire, to say what needs to be said.


Animatronik: So pointing to cartoon characters on one side and ignoring the ones on the other doesn't prove anything.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't wash with me.

Find me anyone that has elevated status in the Democratic Party that has openly called for killing conservatives. Seriously, find me one quote by a keynote speaker demanding that we should kill all but a few conservatives, leaving a few so that future generations can see what they were like.

This is the voice of the Republican Party and I honestly wish it weren't so.

You know, after being an early supporter of Obama, I walked away in disgust and would have loved to have a decent Republican choice - but there wasn't one - not one that even comes close to representing my views or desires for this country.

Animatronik: There are still Bill Buckley's out there, you just have to choose to pay attention to the right opinions instead of the one getting shouted out.

Actually, it should be the other way around. The Republicans should be putting those people upfront, getting them on Fox News, and letting the people both you and I would want to see spreading the word out front.

That isn't happening. In fact, the real conservatives have zero voice in the Republican Party and it shows.


Animatronik: And liberalism's not getting represented? I don't know what planet you live on, but the percentage of GDP being spent on social programs under Obama will go way beyond anything ever envisioned in U.S. history.

I'd like to see you back that up with some numbers - because what I'm seeing is all rhetoric and pretty damn light on facts.

Even better, what the hell is wrong with Social programs?
Why is it a bad thing to invest in our country and people?
We invest in everyone else. Hell Iraq has universal health coverage.


Animatronik: You guys seems to think that ignoring the facts will somehow change the center of the debate. Nothing's changed, only the way you choose to describe it. We have a leftist government more like the European left than anything in the U.S. since WWII.

I suppose that comes in how you define leftist.
From my perspective this is a moderate government.
That's why I moved past Obama - too right leaning for me.
I don't think we've had a "leftist" government in either of our lifetimes but I would sure like to try one out.

What we do have is a miserable health care system, an aging infrastructure, an economy that is unsustainable, a military that eats up more of our resources than any time since WWII - and not really any use against terrorists not to mention the incredibly embarrassing fact that many other countries have a better quality of life than we do - which is incredible considering that we were the number 1 country not all that long ago.

We elected people who somehow managed to lose that for us and I am going to say that was mostly Republicans that did that.

But, that's me, and I will admit I am biased.

The End is Near: Ann Coulter is not successful because her ideas are appealing. Ann Coulter is successful because she pisses people off.

So, pissed off people buy her books? Why would they do such a silly thing?

flannelled fool: Drudge was teasing on this story a couple days ago:
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document. more

Like Drudge is credible?
Seriously, you're quote Drudge?

The End is Near: Unless you're a DNC operative, you're not doing any good by participating in discussions like this. Even if you were, you'd have to weigh the benefits vs. the cost, and my personal analysis is that this issue is complete noise that no one cares about. It's getting legs because it's a controversy, not because the right-wingers are running around heralding her as the second coming.

A DNC operative?
That's funny.

The End is Near: The Clintons would've been just fine if it weren't for Bill and his love of cigars and interns. He was well liked and, by the average person's account, doing a good job. His mistake was giving the right-wing noise machine something with actual meat to sink their teeth into.

Bull, they were being dragged through the mud on anything and everything, most of which were outright lies to begin with.

Did you forget that there were people, in the military, no less, that were using Bill and Hillary targets?

The Sexual harrassment charges?
State troopers saying they brought Bill drugs and women?
The lies were continuous and endless.
And they're starting up again.

The End is Near: Ignoring the noise and sticking to the meat is the best strategy, especially when you control both the executive and legislative branches.

That strategy doesn't work.
The masses love the noise.

The End is Near: When you engage in frivolous debate, you give it merit. Remember War Games?

It was a movie - not a plan to live your life by.

The End is Near: Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

And if you build it, they won't come.

Too much blah blah blah, not enough hot fox news chicks:

Random Reality Check: Like Drudge is credible?
Seriously, you're quote Drudge?

Drudge provided a link to the Washington Post. You see that little word "more" at the end of the paragraph? If you move your mouse over that little word and then click once, it will magically transport you, through the power of the Interwebs, to the article.

Coffee man.
Use it.
It has magical powers.

flannelled fool: Like the Washington Post is credible?
Seriously, you're quoting the Washington Post?

In the computing world, there is an old term, I'm sure you're familiar with, "GIGO"

WaPo and Drudge are in the lowest tiers of credibility ranking right up there with the New York Times.

Find a better source of information and we will all be better off because of it.

Seriously.

flannelled fool: Drudge provided a link to the Washington Post. You see that little word "more" at the end of the paragraph? If you move your mouse over that little word and then click once, it will magically transport you, through the power of the Interwebs, to the article.

That's why I made the Goebbels reference. It's all in how you choose the words.

Lets take a the failure of some non-bank financial company. They have the option of either failing or being temporarily taken over by the treasury and stabilised before being returned to the public. This has happened countless times with smaller banks over the last few decades and isn't some sinister plot. The government doesn't retain control once the institution has been stabilised but currently can only assist banks rather than the larger spectrum of financial institutions.

Calling what the treasury does "seizure" is about as accurate as calling jump starting someone's car for them "attempted grand theft auto".

This Is Bold Text: DarthBrooks: "You don't want to think if you get in bed with Uncle Sam he's going to strip you naked, chain you to the bed, leave you there and then take nasty pictures of you and then put them on the internet."

I like the way she thinks.

I'm almost there... almost there.


Does he spank me? Tell me he spanks me like a naughty little slut!

Win.

I actually think all news items should be compared to sexual escapades. At least then I'd watch...

She just won't let it go...

I already apologised and it was only once! ONCE!

I'm afraid that Auntie Samantha will shackle me, dress up in a sexy latex SS uniform with a riding crop, and tell me what a naughty little juden I am.