gohansrage

Whaaaat? That's crazy. Oh Texas. Also, I proudly say the pledge. I just don't say the under God part.

I assume this is about the stimulus package. I have mixed feelings about the stimulus as a whole, but I think accusations of back scratching (which is essentially what you are saying) are misplaced. At the end of 2008 Bush bailed out the banks because he felt he needed to do that to save the economy. In early 2009, Obama did the same thing with the auto industry. Whether these things worked or not is a matter of debate (some economists think these actions avoided the biggest economic collapse in history, others think it didn't do anything.). It's hard to debate what would have happened had Bush/Obama done nothing (because they did something). But I object that either spent this money in anything other than an earnest need to fix things. I'm lost here. Will Obamacare drag on the economny by increasing purchases of insurance coverage? Perhaps it will drag the economy by lowering the deficit like the Congressional Budget Office says it will? Perhaps it will drag the economy by lowering the amount of indivuals who are too sick to work? Obama has not raised taxes. ACA has additional taxes on indivuals making over $250K that haven't gone into effect yet. (By the way, that tax increase still does not bring those tax rates to what they were before Bush's tax cuts. Which Obama extended despite my wishes) You mean like cutting the defense budget so we spend only more than any other country and not more than the next 14 countries combined? We need to get away from fossil fuels. Nuclear power is something I'm very interested in as are wind. I'd also like to see research into thinking differently about energy. Example Something like : Obama said China's currency "is undervalued." He added that Beijing "spends enormous amounts of money" to keep the yuan in that condition and said it's critical for China, "in a gradual fashion," to let markets set the currency's value. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/12/obama-global-economy-path-recovery/#ixzz23Wg6UjNy I thought you wanted to cut federal spending!? What happened? Great idea. Support whole heartedly I understand the official tax rate is high. Very few companies actualyl pay that: http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/03/news/economy/corporate_taxes/index.htm Is this a birth control thing? Beacuse I think the religious argument there is weak at best. If this refers to something else please elaborate

Fixed. :-P In seriousness, I miss the Olympics. Sochi in 2014!

:P I know it doesn't seem that way but I agree with this completely.

Did you read SwampD's statement that Fox News is more agressive in their agenda pushing? That's my point. I'm not pretending anything. If you aren't understanding my point I don't know what to tell you. The NY Post is garbage. It's a glorified tabloid. Just awful. I like the Wall St Journal a lot. I would argue any popularity it has over the New York Times (which I understood to be quite profitable but could be wrong) is due to it's specialization in business reporting. Businesses all maintain their WSJ subscriptions. I don't think the political content is the reason why. On that we completely agree. That quote was cut to hell and you know it So neither of them are real people? That's my take There are a sizable portion of people who make too little to pay taxes. What's the point of this argument? That rich people (most of whom were born with oppurtunities the rest of us can't dream of getting) should have to pay less on the money they inherit (estate tax that Romney wants to cut) or pay less on the income they get from investments (capital gains tax which Romney used to support)? How does that make sense? I don't care that much about his tax returns personally. Dems who say "what is he trying to hide?" upset me because that is the same line birthers used. (Yes I understand asking for his tax returns is not the same as askin Obama to provide a better birth certificate. It's the same logic though and it's stupid).

Did you really work at both? In what capacity?

If only I had also said " will admit MSNBC's talking heads are liberals (Maddow, Matthew, Schultz )," Oh wait, I did? Sweet. I do think the Fox talking heads are more consistent in their messages and more thorough in their bias. Fixed that for you. Because Fox News has the monopoly on scaring conservatives.

While I agree he is slowing down, Regehr right now is better than Rivet when we got him.

I can't believe I let myself get baited into this. This argument is pointless. It. Does. Not. Matter. The mainstream media does NOT care who you vote for. They do not. They care if you tune in tomorrow. That's the only thing that matters to them. That's my point.

Agreed.

Because I was trolling nfreeman honestly. I will admit MSNBC's talking heads are liberals (Maddow, Matthew, Schultz ), but I don't think their efforts are systemic like Fox. This discussion started with this: "In a close election, which this appears to be, the media will skew the "news" coverage towards pro Obama. The Obama "politics" are right in the wheelhouse of the liberal media" - Respsk and "Well, while I agree that most of the mainstream media is suffused with liberal bias, it's still quite surmountable as we saw in 2004" - nfreeman These statements imply the "liberal" news organizations have a boss pushing talking points, a unified message, and a concetrated effort to prop up one party and push down the other. However, the only organization who I see participating in this wholesale spin is Fox. Except Ed Schultz. He is a liberal Fox News guy. I don't like him one bit

Because the bias of 24 hours news cycle doesn't matter. The media is out to scare you into consuming more media. That is it's main purpose. Whether it does this by convincing old people Obama is out to steal their medicare or by convincing young people Boehner is out to make birth control illegal is irrelevant. I could go on for hours about Fox News's agenda and you can respond with MSNBC's agenda and we could get mad at each other until we're blue in the face for all the good it's going to do.

Can I meet you halfway and concede that cable news is garbage in general?

I'll concede that

I didn't call anybody a name. I said the post contained idiocy. It did. Believing in any media bias other than "trying to get people to consume media more often" is also idiotic.

Agreed! Buffalo Wild Wings is much better (although local places are the way to go) Tully's is one of those place that you wonder who goes there. You never meet anyone who likes it yet they have 11 locations. Who is eating there? Best, Worst, Overrated in Rochester: Best Plate - Nick Tahou's on Main. The original. (Love to Bill Gray's though). Worst Plate - Any diner that offers a rubbish or trash plate. It's usually rubbish or trash. Best Pizza - Matter of opinion on how you're like your pie. For me, the best is Stromboli Express on East Ave Worst Pizza - Carmine's. I don't understand how people eat there. Overrated Pizza - Pontillo's. It's not bad. I just don't understand why some people are obsessed with it. Best Italian - Rosie's on Chestnut was the best. But it closed. Now I'd say DaVinci's in Greece is my favorite Worst Italian - I want to say no Italian food is bad then I remember Olive Garden is a thing Overrated Italian - Mario's Via Abruzzi. Not worth the price. Not even close. Best Fine Dining - Get to the Grill at the Strath Allen before it closes (to be made a pool! a tragedy) Worst Fine Dining - Zeppa Grill on Gregory Overrated Fine Dining - 2 Vine Grill on Matthews. It's fine. Not worth the price Best Alternative Menu - The Owl House on Marshall St. Variety of amazing Vegetarian/Vegan/Gluten Free dishes Best Food Truck - Le Petit Poutine. It's Poutine on a truck. Self explanatory

I have searched far and wide for a word that can fully capture the idiocy of this post. I was unable to do so. Congratulations good sir, I tip my cap to you. Social mobility in the United States is more limited here than in comparable countries: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States If you're born poor, you will probably die poor. If you're born rich, you will probably die rich. That's just the reality of life.

You get a Gold Star for this comment

In their defense, we don't sing along with the National Anthem when it's sung. I'm not sure they realize they can/should sing along with it when it's just played.

Yes. The Romanians also had a 24 year old who was insanely hot

120% this. They are probably the most well conditiioned athletes in the world. There is a real danger of drowning in these races and they go incredibly far and incredibly fast. But it's also totally unwatchable. Sorry distance swimmers!

I know it's a rule. It's still a travesty. Agreed. People who condem soccer because of "things like this" seem to forget the Dallas Stars won the Stanley Cup with an illegal goal. Shaky officiating is part of sports

Serious hypothetical question.... If this happened but the Sabres went on to win the division, are Sabres fans still obsessed with this Miller/Lucic hit? I posit the general fanbase is dwelling on this hit because they perceive this incident as the event that derailed the Sabres season.

Internet tough guy talk is the best

I think the main beef of FIFA is "the ref decided the result before the game started" part. For the record, it's a TRAVESTY if Sinclair doesn't play in the Bronze metal match. It would be typical of FIFA though.