Pdog wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 12:41pm:




Pdog I cited a link for a group that hasn't a damned thing to do with ratings! Yes, Fox does kick the ever loving shit out  of all other news combined! They have for a long long time, but that was only part of the greater point that I was making. The fact is that Columbia School Of Journalism is no right-wing think tank!!! They are, if anything, very liberal. In a blind test they scored Fox as easily the most balanced, and unbiased news station on the air. We're not talking about Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly here. We are talking about straight news.


I then pointed you to a totally non partisan group that once again backs up the position of Columbia. There is no agenda at play in either one of those sources. So my point is that if you don't like it take it up with them.


I know damned good and well that Fox is the most unbiased of the bunch. It's not even close in fact. Watch any show on MSNBC and then compare it to Bret Bair's broadcast. Do the same with Anderson Cooper and compare him to Bret Bair. Anyone that says that Fox is less balanced and more biased than those two shows I cite are flat out lying.



Riffy

Riffhard wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 1:04pm:



I would agree that before the election Palin had more "experience". Only because she held an executive position, and with that had more experiences as an elected official. But she quit to become a facebook champion of conservative causes.

So what do you think that implies? That this experience would make her more sensible? More able to make informed decisions?
I would disagree on these points.

And pretty soon Obama will have spent the same time in office, but wouldn't you agree that Presidential decisions are tougher than state of Alaska decisions. He probably has more tangible experience than her already.  I mean what did she really do? Hunting permit reform? I admit that I cannot recall any meaningful legislation to her credit.

Would you agree with McCain, that she is the most knowledgeable elected official on energy issues?

She was a gamble, and now that gamble has tainted the credibility of the party.

Starbuck wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:



I could have worded that better.

Few have certitude in their God. (that's probably not accurate either, as 22% believe the rapture will happen in the next 50 years)

As for me, I certainly can't claim that I know there is no God.
But none of the books get me closer to believing. I wish that wasn't the case.

For instance, I don't believe that the sun used to orbit the earth. I think that a God would have known this. I don't believe in Adam and Eve, that God breathed divine breath upon soil to create Adam, that God had an opinion about who should occupy certain areas in the mideast, etc . . .

So if I can't believe these books that instruct on faith, it's not hard for me to be skeptical of the whole concept.
There are undeniably many good social instructions in the Bible. But I don't know they are God's instructions.
One thing I am sure of, I will never vote a specific way because a human tells me God would want me to (I have direct evidence of this happening via Christian friends).

Now I do believe that the faithful feel something from prayer, and they identify that feeling as their God. Just as Buddhists feel from prayer of a secular nature. And that continually praying will have an effect on one's world view. Jim Jones was able to get his followers to kill themselves because of their faith. It is powerful, for sure.

I understand that civilizations too far apart to communicate with each other all worshiped a God.
How can that be? I can't explain it. Granted these worshipers had very different rituals, many completely barbaric.
How did the universe begin? We may never know, probably won't know before we do ourselves in or the earth rejects us, unless we change our ways and soon.

So I would prefer that we (all nations) start educating based on what we know of how to manage and preserve our existence on this amazing blue gem, Earth. We should stop saying that we have dominion over all of the earth's creatures, and that God will return to save us after we deplete all that is necessary for our survival here.

I'm not trying to deliberately provoke, honestly. It's pretty difficult to navigate this topic without offending.

Riffhard wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:


so were not talking about the conservative fox commetators, just the liberal CNN commentators? I don't watch much of any of these people,when I do, I will watch a minute or two of Hannity or O'Reilly, when I have a minute, I will watch some of them... Occasionlly Olberman, but they all are so extreme... as for striaght news... I'm not sure what you're defining as straight news... non of them are, it is all tabloid junk for the most part in a 24 hour braodcast. Alot of sensationalism... glan Beck is one huge exception, that dude is retarded... OReilly and Hannity I know like to get people riled up, and say stuff to be get a good reaction, but beck... that dude has some sort of stream of consciousness retardation thing going.
I'm not sure who the liberals who are fair and balnced commentators on Fox are? Greta Van sustren is still breaking news on the Natalie Holloway case... is that the liberal side of the non tabloid?

riffy, the minneapolis star tribute is reporting that obama's intercession brought favre out of retirement.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/pit/1258766538.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivhwO_zWWg

Damn! I knew that Obama would be a complete and uter disaster, but even I didn't think that he would single handedly destroy the Democrat party!
Oh, wait, yes I did. I did say that again, and again, and again. Well guess what? I was right. Again!.



Obummer sucks! The country is waking up to that FACT. Sorry Dems. You only have yourselves, and the far left fringe freaks of your base to blame. The fact that you voted for a man that resides on the farthest left fringe of the base is laughable if no other reason than the ultimate outcome has been so predictable. And so it is. The Dems are fucked.


Riffy



Here--->


Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.

Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.

"These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low," he wrote.

"Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats."

Cook scrupulously avoided any mention that Democratic control of the House is in jeopardy but, noting a new Gallup poll showing Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents, concluded that the post-recess environment could feel considerably different than when Congress left in August.

"We believe it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact that this mood will have on Members of Congress of both parties when they return to Washington in September, if it persists through the end of the Congressional recess."

Brainbell Jangler wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 8:15pm:




BJ I know that this may come as a shock to you, but you know about as much about the existence or non existence of God as anyone else, including Dawson. You may not believe in Him. Fine. However, I can not get over why anyone would seek to deny something that they can never prove or disprove. To me it reeks of the height of arrogance quite frankly. So if faith in God, brings people joy, happiness, peace, and comfort why would you want to deny them that? The very definition of faith is the belief in something that can't be proven. Plus there are many scientists that are believers, and they see abolutely no conflict there.


Where did science come from? Where did the first atom come from? You know about as much about those questions as you do about God. Which is to say that you haven't a clue. You have just put your faith in science. You just worship at a different alter.


Riffy

Riffhard wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 8:41pm:


Science is just the ongoing study of things, and it evolves as more information surfaces. There is no supernatural cause allowed.
Religion's state the way things are with no evidence required. And every book contains many factual errors about the way things are. We know they are false (like the Sun/Earth relationship for instance).

There are many reasons to discuss religion/faith. Most people certainly use their faith to instruct them in good deeds. This isn't the problem with faith. This does however, give cover for the extreme believers, because the subject is off limits.

The terrorists that flew planes into buildings had faith. Extreme faith. These guys were all middle class, college educated, a few were PHd's. They didn't plot to overthrow corrupt governments. They spent hours in their Mosque dreaming of the afterlife, where Allah would greet them as heroes for killing infidels. Where did they get that idea? It is possible in this day and age, for a scientist to make a bomb in their garage, and use it against the masses, all the while believing God approves of this action. It is a merger of 1st century philosophy, with 21st century destructive power. It is untenable.

Tribes in Africa are being taught by Catholic missionaries that condoms are immoral. Meanwhile, millions die every year from HIV AIDS. Yet questioning these missionaries (or the Pope) of this action is off limits because it's their faith?

An honest conversation needs to begin. No fair resting on the argument "it's my belief". People don't respect beliefs. People respect reasons. There are no legitimate reasons to believe in the supernatural.

I have no idea where this "conversation" will go, or end up.

By the way, the conversation I speak of isn't this thread. It is scholars, philosophers, scientists, religious leaders, etc . . .

It's about actually doing the right thing as it pertains to ALL people inhabiting the planet. It's about dialog to end these stupid wars.
It's about understanding who we are, where we come from, and where we're going. Not squandering all of the resources for short term gains.

But it's not about you . . . .

Brainbell Jangler wrote on Aug 20^th, 2009 at 8:15pm:


brainbell dear...come now. no offense, dude, but it's comments like that make you look like an elitist snob. if i were to sit down to read your richard dawson book and came away thinking you were right and the notion of god was a farce, would i not be as brain dead as if some mormon passing by gave me a copy of the new testament and i became born again? your academic treatise isn't going to move me towards athiesm any more than reading anselm's ontological argument might move me in the other direction. me reading any book is not going to change my opinion on the matter...

Quote:


again, howe did you figure this out? what information do you have besides family feud that proves god doesn't exist? laying down blanket statements like that makes you come off just as intolerant as the right wing christian kooks for whom you have so much disdain.

brainbell, you don't know there is no god....none of us do. the only people that do are the dead. and maybe some zombies. but they aren't talkin.

whenever you guys talk about God, irt is always connected to the reliogous context... Riffy asked a God qustion, where did the atom come from... the atom is God, and from POV towrds god, there's no religous cnotation or connection... that's why I can wrap my brain around it, and not have to worry about races, sexual identity and all this other bullshit religoins have created... just like with money, property, power... all early groups of men, felt their tribe or race was better, their god was better and they used these beleifs to justify war and oppressiing others. They built class systems and based social structures on this belief. The natural progression is the underclass will eventually gain power and fight back, and then they will in turn do the same thing. Always in the name of race, creed, religion ect... this trend hasn't eneded and only idealists who think like me, have the faith that beleives we can move on past it.... see my faith is that it is ok to be a small yet powerful atom, it is ok to not care who someone fucks or what color they are or what they have... my faith is not giving a fuck, in a good and god like way... the only challenge I face with this, is not thinking i am better than those who still want to judge others by how they pray and live... i'm not better than you, but i'm damn grateful i'm not you too... works for me, and since there's no religion, i bow down to no man!!! i wish everyone the best of luck with your god or lack of god...

Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) -- When the political winds shift -- when a party is voted out of power or a policy is panned by the public -- Washington turns to its favorite pastime: the blame game.

And so it is with President Barack Obama, who tripped on his sprint to the health-care-reform finish line. Voters, it seems, want to understand a little more about what ObamaCare will mean for them, what it will do to the doctor-patient relationship, and what it will cost future generations in higher taxes and, yes, rationed supply.

Rather than examine the public’s concerns, the plans’ inconsistencies or the sheer irresponsibility of trying to ram something this big and complicated through Congress without a small-scale trial, the Obama administration is pointing fingers. Lots of them. Most of the targets are just plain silly.

1. Conservative groups

When liberal activists, including trade unions, Acorn and MoveOn.org, protested against anything and everything President George W. Bush said or did, it was called grassroots democracy.

When conservative groups encourage supporters to attend town hall meetings and make their sentiments known to their congressmen, it’s un-American, disruptive and the work of right- wing extremists.

Madame Hypocrite

Where was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, when President George W. Bush was being compared to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? She was a “fan of disrupters” in those days, as she told anti-war protesters at a January 2006 town hall meeting in San Francisco. Pelosi only developed a thin skin (too much plastic surgery?) when the Democrats took control of the executive and legislative branches of government.

The effort to blame right-wing groups is transparent. If my feedback on a recent column is indicative of the political persuasion and demographic distribution of the protesters, these are ordinary Americans energized by the debate, frustrated at not having a voice and motivated to exercise their right of free speech. Attempts to smear opponents and shut down debate are, well, un-American.

2. Insurance Companies

Garnering support for health-insurance reform by demonizing insurance companies is a cheap shot, albeit one that resonates with the public. After all, these are the faceless bureaucrats who deny or pay claims in a seemingly arbitrary manner and refuse or cancel coverage if you cost them too much money.

Stubborn Facts

Facts are stubborn things, this White House is quick to remind us. And in this case, the facts don’t support the vilification.

If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California, and occasional Bloomberg News columnist: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders.

His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns.

“There’s no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders” or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal finds.

Health care needs a major overhaul, but that’s no reason to make scapegoats out of insurance companies.

3. The Media

I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard Obama point the finger at the media at his town hall meeting last week in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Fishing Expedition

The president, defending the White House’s fishing expedition for “fishy” e-mails on health-insurance reform (suspended this week by popular demand), blamed the media for “distorting what’s taken place.”

Is this the same media that was in the pocket for candidate Obama and waltzed us through the honeymoon? If Bush had been as reliant on his teleprompter as Obama, or said “Cinco de Cuatro” when he meant “Cuatro de Mayo,” the press would have been all over him for being inept.

Sorry, Mr. President, you have no idea what it means for the media to distort what’s taken place. The long-gone Bush administration is getting more negative press than you are.

4. Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, the recently retired governor of Alaska, 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate and Democrat’s favorite whipping boy (or girl), created a stir with a reference to death panels on Facebook. Palin said she didn’t want her parents or Down-Syndrome baby to “have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide” what kind of medical care should be allocated to these less productive members of society.

Blame the Democrats

This is the same Sarah Palin whose foreign policy experience was summed up during the campaign by her ability “to see Russia from land here in Alaska.” This is the same Sarah Palin credited with changing the terms of the debate? C’mon. That’s too laughable to address.

Besides, there’s a kernel of truth in what she said. Like all goods and services, medical care is a scarce resource that must be rationed. The only question is how: by the market (price) or by government mandate.

If government is doing the rationing, what exactly will bureaucrats use to determine who gets what care and who doesn’t?

Opposition to fast-track health-insurance reform is coming from Obama’s own party. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of six Finance Committee members involved in bipartisan negotiations, said on Fox News Sunday that the goal is to “get this right,” not meet some “specific timetable.”

He said the Senate lacks enough votes to pass a bill with a public option. “To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”

There’s always room for one more -- the Democrats -- on Obama’s blame-game list.