waldo

News content wise, meaning objectivity/fairness in reporting the news ! balanced articles! imo the wsj is better than any other paper out there ,other than the CSM. Granted there are some pretty good middle market papers across the country, but they do not have national exposure......what major paper do you think plays it strait on the news end, please do not say the times.

Good point.... on the refresh rate.... they are all dishonest on some level... point me to a news site that is not, other than the WSJ and the CSM (for news only).

I am not sure we should be quoting him .. he is in disfavor now i am told

obamas real problem, along with not being able to break 50% approval at this stage, is the fact that the independants ranks have a much larger percentage of reagan democrats in them this time around vs 08.imo... and the newly enrolled are mostly white working class voters who were registered as democrats last time out. Although the media tells you that only 5-8% of the independents are still in play..that number in some internal polls is actaully 15%+ when you ask people if they are sure they are going to vote for x or y and if they could change their minds. When the independents swing it is generally toward the challenger I do not believe this race can be won with less than 49% of the popular vote in the abscence of a real third party canidate. the closer this race gets to novemeber with them tied in the swing states +/- 1-2 the worse it is for the incumbent/

with the dramatically reduced prime time exposure? did you see where drudge got near a billion hits.. yikes .. i will have to go there more often

good point...true..debates too

You are rich...give swamp d your address so he and deluca can demonstrate in front of your house with their union and 99% friends! :P :P :P :P :P :P :P could not resist.. kidding of course

Anything paid for with money he has earned is his middle class right ,just as it is your right not to work and recieve the benifits that people who do work pay for..should you choose to do so.

Taxes for the people who actually pay the vast majority of them, are very high. Health care for all is a wonderful concept, worthy of our attention, as are a number of other programs. FyI , the health care program that got passed is not "health care for all" because it has a sustainable life span of about five years after full implementation and it will severely restrict services available to the average joe and senior citizens on medicare..The timing on its passage and the one party structuring of the program was just horrible.Great idea. do it in a surplus year when you are NOT on the verge of bankruptcy and in a fifty year recession.. The country is 16 trillion in debt and has 70 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Half of the people who have immigrated, legally or illegally, in the last decade are on government assistence programs . The real unemployment rate is 14%. The economy is expanding at a european snail like pace. Your country is four years away from financial collapse, meaning , no health care, no welfare, no social security, no food stamps,no medicaid, no medicare, 25%+ unemployment and hyper inflation . The purchasing power of every dollar has been cut by 20% in the last three years as the result of our monetary policy. Have you noticed? So although it is always wonderfulll to dream of utopian concepts and principals.. reality still has to be dealt with. Now some may say tax the rich or the corporations. The response to that brilliant proposal is , take 100% of every dollar they have (if they let you) and your country still goes belly up in five years.

old and well used ... but still perfect "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

from the article ( very poorly written) In 1990 he takes over a 200 million in debt, near bankrupt firm, that had already defaulted on its loans and just layed off 10% of its' workforce. Its name was Bain and Company not to be confused with Bain Capital , a different buisness. He was once an employee of this company before he moved to bain capital? He then gets the partners of bain and comapny to recapitalize the firm to the tune of $100 million. Bain and Company then borrows an unspecified amount of money(wish the author provided the amount) from four banks as operating capital and agrees to rapay . The structure provides bain with a grace period on the repayment schedule.of two years.I wonder if it is a balloon at the end of two.( the author would not want to tell us that if it was because it blows up his entire story) He negotiates into the loan documents the ability to pay all salary and wages due to employees and officers under their payment plans.(pretty standard) fyi state and federal law protects employee salaries paid under payment plans in both the normal course of buiness and to a lesser extent in bankruptcy He provides a lien on company assets to leverage the loan. Bain and Company runs for two years but misses its revenue targets and needs to renegotiate the terms of the loan. One bank in the original loan mix goes belly up in the interim and the fdic takes them over which puts them in the deal on the bankruptcy side for 30 million?. He negoitates new terms and obtains a new repayment schedule on the debt , He uses every legal bankruptcy trick as leverage? They threaten to go bankrupt after paying all salary and wages to employees,and officers if the banks do not agree. The loan and interst is repayed to the three vialble banks in full? (i assume if it was not the author would be all over it) and the FDIC which was already holding the loan on their books as a credit of a bankrupt bank, signs off on the deal and saves the assets of three other banks in full .(There are only a hundred good reasons for them to do this). I wonder what the 30 million was principal and interest wise. When you book a loss you generally book it as the total principal plus total interest payable over the entire term of the loan. But why would the author tell us that. This happens how many times a day in banking industry. Was the company saved and did it prosper? Was he well paid for using his skill sets over a four year period . For saving a 200-300 million dollar company? About average. He did a geat job. When a author uses thirty or so statements like “He casts himself as selfless”, “he told his cheerleading biographer” he “Slinks back” one can assume the author is writting a hit piece and that many relevant facts are missing. When the article is in the Rolling Stone and it is a recast of several stories published twenty years ago you can take it to the bank. Now all the loyal left rags and tv stations will pick it up like it is a new story. Another desperate Obama hack hit. Is anything that comes out of this adminitrations mouth, the truth.

Agreed ,,,,,,she is not tough to look at , easy on the eyes. she is about all there is at cnn..the rest of them are . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaDDMj-T6F8

As probably one of the few people here that has the time to actually watch all the news broadcasts when i am not in pay me mode, fox , the conservative network, seems to play it out on a more even keel than the other majors. Wallace is the best interviewer in the buisness. On the commentary side they have many more "tokens: on their payroll than most other networks and their partisans and tokens tend to a bit more sophisticated and better educated than their counterparts on abc, nbc, cbs, and especially pbs, . Hands down they have the most beautiful, highly educated, women on any channel and they use them as anchors.(the only anchors on tv with four inch heels) When i watch msnbc and cnn i sometimes feel the urge to bark. Fox is more of a hetrosexual staion imo. I do not mean to imply that fox can, in any way , compete with naked news. An exception on the commentary side,i do not watch the five. It is undigestable.I can never bring myself to watch it, It is the visual equivelent of trying to read a Dowd or Krugman piece in the Times. A blithering attack on ones senses. But it does not fall into the news category so it is out of bounds. Hannity, the reverand and the big irishman are also undigestable on the commentary side.

I am wiling to share them.but i have to ask my radio station friend... the truth about govenrment?.. two mobs at war. nothing is what it seems to be.healthcare was more about money and the maintainence of power than health care. those who think their is a philosphical difference are naive (this is my opinion) the only commonality is money and power . constituency groups are there to be placated, manipulated and controled to maintain power, I do think the republicans are slightly more sophisticated than the democrats and like any good mob unwilling to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The democrats, seem willing to destroy the host, especially when the extreme of their party is in control.. Thats the danger in it all.

I have been an independent for many years/decades. I watch fox, msnbc,cnn, abc, cbs, read the times, journal, post , trib etc..my vote over the years is close to fifty fifty... ther are many other similar viewers that watch everything. doc.. i have seen the demographics.(very interesting when you see the political affilation tabs) i am not a net guy.. other than here.. and only when we are down

he stayed for twenty years..

Matrix ..if your minister, priest ,or rabbi stood at the podium and ranted about the jews and whitey incessantly and how evil America was ,how long would you remain as a member in that chuch.

Thanks for the update. i apologize for not looking it up ..as stated previously a persons religion means nothing to me

I do not care about his religion.or your beliefs..just like i do not care about politicians sexual habits . diets, morals or fetishes (unless they want me to endorse them or try to enact them into law) Romney can worship a poster of joey heatherton while he sits on a needle if he wishes.this is America.....all that matters to me is that he is not our present moron and msnbc and the times hate him :w00t: .

I was also using 1930 to 1970s politics to brand them. They will alwaysl be the party with a 100 a history of racism > charges that rely on revisonist history that tag the republicans with slavery and racism are disingenuous at best... the president as a partially black man should know better. FYI it has been illegal in the mormon church for???? 50 years???? If you want to marry twenty women i do not care. What kind of beer. Does my chicken have to wear a dress?

then we agree completely unless you want to take issue with any item in my above post.. My original point was if you are going to hang a racist tag on any party, from a historical perspective, it would not be on the dopey republicans. I thought the shift /swap in philosphy statement was an attempt to disprove the point. My apology I can live with that, but i want it in law and condoned by everyonne, even the people who vehemetly disagree with me( and are in the majority)

Why not.are you opposed to love????.todays ridiculous is tommorws reality...Can we agree we should be permitted to vote on in in a constitutional amendment form?...

i want to marry my chicken

A different perspective. I do not think you and the professor are trying to tell me that: (are you? becuase that would be pretty scarry/it was'nt really the dems they were really republicans?) Republicans did not pass and ratify the 14th amendment ot the civil rights and reconstruction acts of the 1860s? Or possibly.. all chevys are green but my chevy is blue. ?t.. Lincoln was not a republican ? Robert byrd and george wallace, al gore sr, and sam ervin were not democrats and racist voices in the democrat party. They were really republicans? The democrat party of 1948 did not oppose the end of school segregation in court and the republicans did not support the end of segregation? (brown vs somebody). Lyndon johnson was not opposed to the civil rights act? (remember who he was before he became vp) Jonn Kennedy did not vote against dirksen's civil rights act of 1957. (i just read a biography on dirksen/can you tell) You are trying to tell me that the dixie democrats did not remain int he democrat party during your shift. Dirsksen was not a major contributor to the verbage and driver of the civil rights act and closer to King than spit? The south did not vote solidly democrat for 100 years(right through your " swap"... More republicans as a percentage, did not vote for the Civil Rights act than democrats in the house and Senate, although they were the minority party? It would not have passed without them.FYI...The Voting Rights bill passed the same way.

I went way over the line and stated some real reaches, granted, but..generally speaking. The civil rights movement was essentially a war fought within the dem party in those days.. look at the votes on all the key legislation by party. Pinning the republicans with slavery and ,calling them racists is disingenous and probably historically innacurate.If you were going to pin a party with blame it would be the democrats..there is the irony in it all.. my memory tells me the south was controlled by democrats , the north by republicans during the civil war and through 1900s????? that was the polictical config during that era ..Am i wrong? in the era of segregation and the kkk was the south not a solid dem voting block? if i am wrong make your case... the great society went far beyond kennedys vision in scope. it was a johnson invention..that he portrayed as a kennedy legacy issue,,