It is interesting.. That video is pretty amazing. I wonder what it was.. the explanation from the Ruskie weatherman seems a little specious.. odd weather confluence??

Not sayin' it's an alien craft but the sun? c'mon...

You don't understand, do you, TJ?

The Demoncrat idea of bipartisanship is "Do what I want and keep your mouth shut. We do not want to hear your ideas and we don't care that you have ideas in the first place"

and the Demoncrat's purpose of "reaching across the isle" is to put a pair of handcuffs on anyone that extends to them their hand..

Why should they vote 'yes' on something their constituents are vehemently opposed to? Why should they vote 'yes' on something they are philosophically opposed to?

Put in some measures that conservatives believe in, like tort reform or tax deductibility for health care costs or take the restriction on flexcare accounts, and you might get some to go along..

but asking people to go along with things they don't agree with and then whining about lack of cooperation.. give me a break.. go back to the kiddie pool

and it's not like they even needed her vote.. Rather than being 13-10, it was 14-9.. talk about a token vote.. Snow isn't really a conservative, she's a RINO.

I think that's a fairly jaded perspective.. not that there's not some truth to it. there is. but if you follow that to it logical conclusion, you arrive at a place where you cannot take anything anyone has to say.. and I just can't get there.

I understand that FOX has a particular demographic that it, in a way, has to keep happy. Rush and Beck and Jon Stewart and Colbert are the same way.. If you offend your audience too often, soon you have no audience..

but I gotta think that there is some truth, a good amount of truth, in the things that a guy like Boortz or Levin has to say..

Yea, they're a little coarse in the way they deliver their message and they're speaking to a particular audience but if people didn't identify with it, they wouldn't listen. And if enough people didn't listen, they wouldn't be on the air.. particularly in the talk radio medium..

Air America is a great example.. It's the free market. People weren't listening, they went off the air despite all the money folks like Soros were pumping into it..

So my point is that if the audience didn't exist, they wouldn't be selling to it. Meaning that if people didn't want to hear what Fox is saying, they wouldn't listen.. And the fact is that FOX pulls a bigger audience at 3AM (!!!) than CNN pulls in primetime..

bump...

still waiting to find out why it is that we have to be in such a hurry to pass legislation that won'ttake effect until after the next presidential election...

"how the press rolled over for Bush" ??

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!


Did I fall asleep and wake up in bizzarro world?

This guys is definately on the other side of the looking glass!

bump..

care to take a swing, big fella?



why wait till 2013? why wait till The One has a chance to be re-elected without having implemented his magnanimous plan but getting the "credit" for signing it into law?




******************************



Back at ya!

real quick question:

of the plan that's being proposed, most of, if not all of, it doesn't go into effect until 2013.. if it's such an emergency and this plan is going to so great, if everyone will see the benefit and come running to public option single payer healthcare, why make us wait around until after the next presidential election? Why not make it law and instiute it tomorrow, if it's so bloody awesome?

right now 1,000 pounds british is about $1930 US, according to the currency converter on my samsung eternity..

which may not be all that accurate.. google has it as 1 GBP = 1.585 USD, = 1.5908 USD from Forex..

Well, I'm not sure I would go that far.. and it depends on what and who you're talking about.

I'm just pointing out that people who call Fox News "Faux" News act as if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC etc are just telling it straight..

Dan Rather, anyone?

There are 4 parts to communication: the intended message, how it's spoken/communicated, how it's heard and how it gets interpreted.

It's in the last two parts that the so-called Faux News gets it bad rap from those who are intent on finding it biased in the first place. They buck the trend of the mainstream media. They rock the boat, so to speak.. So those who don't say "hey! you're rocking the boat!"

Most journalists are inherently liberal. They go to Liberal Arts colleges, they get bachelors of arts degrees and are churned out of liberally biased communications departments.. Not all, of course but most. They young and idealistic and intent on changing the world. Nothing wrong with that, per se but I think you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the Katie Courics and Matt Lauers of the world aren't liberals, don't vote for democrats and don't nearly uniformly and universally support democrat causes.. Again, not that they're not entitled to their political opinions..

They just happen to be in the unique position of having a daily capitive audience to which they get to minister their opinions..

And for the longest time,they were the only ones in the game, they had the market cornered, there were only the big 3 and when you flipped from one to the next, you got the same message, the same news, the same slant on it.. and no one ever questioned them.. No one ever was suspicious that they were all broadcasting from the same building, practically.

Now, when the upstart Fox comes along and throws a monkey wrench into their nice docile audience, their natural response is to attempt to discredit them. The easiest way to do that is to discredit them by calling them biased. Nevermind that they themselves are biased.. That's beside the point..

there's no way you can consider PBS to be unbiased.. it claims to be and I like NewsHour but they're so in the tank for Obama and always have been. It's really pretty blatant.

people only say that because they don't want to hear what's said on the fox news channel.. hear no evil, right?

Just because you don't agree with it or don't like what you hear doesn't mean it's fake (faux) or biased.

Yes, there are opinionators that get air time but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't call Geraldo Rivera or Greta or Juan Williams mouthpeices for the right..

Odd that many of the people I kow who diss Fox News are meny of the same who Colbert and Jon Stewart almost religiously, not that either are news but lots of people "get their news" from those shows.

I was reading an article out of the AP about how difficult the language of legislation is. I'll include some of the passages that I think elucidate the point but I wanted to ask if people think it's right that Congress is up there passing bill that A) they haven't read and B) admit to not having the comprehension skills to understand.

I see the issue as this: Shouldn't laws that affect the entirety of the American citizenry be comprehensible by the folks that pass them? Secondly, isn't it just intuitive that they should have to read that bill before making it law? And Finally, isn't there something insidious in putting the hurry-up offense on legislation the language which you can't comprehend, hiding behind purposefully obtuse and esoteric languange, and insisting that it be made law before anyone else gets a chance to read it??

Just some food for thought. I'm trying not to come at this from a partisan perspective but just from a basic civics perspective..



I find it a little disconcerting that peices of legislation is written in language that those responsible for deciding whether it becomes law cannot understand it and it's done purposefully so that the individual legislator don't feel the need to burden themselve with reading the actual law but rather just being told that some provision that they asked for is in the bill and letting that be the end of it..

And it's not just this healthcare bill (or bills). I'm sure that I could go back and find plenty of other important "laws" in the exact same condition; the stimulus, the banking bill, the cap-and-trade bill aka the restrict-and-tax bill aka the destruction-of-the-economy bill, the Patriot Act..

exactly.. sooner or later they'll take sharpened pencils out of their hands..

you're absolutely right and it was conservatives that rose up and forced the congress off of the amnesty bill..

Bush was Governor in Texas before holding the Oval Office and ppl here took extreme offense at his buddy-buddy relationship w/ vicente fox visavis the immigration issue.. most conservatives held on w/ bush up to the point that he and McCain were pushing for amnesty in 07.. after that most bailed on him, yours truely included

if all the conservatives were in bush's pocket like all the libs seem to have themselves convinced, they all would have just gone along..

but such wasn't the case.. which is the sole reason you can attribute the stoppage of the passing of that attrocity they were about to pass and probably the main reason McCain didn't enjoy the full support of the conservative establishment in his presidential campaign..

you're welcome..

dangerous naïveté.. utterly dangerous..

not if they're the ones scratching the check...

maybe you should check this link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6869646.ece

you're oh so right.. because this gov't take over of the health care industry is NOT going to happen.. despite the Stalinist propaganda tactics on the part of The One!