drnykterstein
-
Posts
7,337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by drnykterstein
-
-
No. DC_Tom, in the most unfunny, kid that the teacher leaves in charge of the class, way, told you the answer. You can't have agreed with it, because you didn't know it before he said it.
No, I intentionally only put out some of the facts, not all of them. You should be familiar with this, because that's exactly what DailyKos/Huffington Post/Salon od, but not because you can tell when they are doing it. Rather, because I keep telling you when they do.
Ok. What part of "The constitution. The document that only protects US citizens accused of crimes committed inside the U.S." was true?
-
The constitution. The document that only protects US citizens accused of crimes committed inside the U.S.
I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can point to the line in the constitution where it says that.
The only places that specifically mention citizenry are the right to vote and also the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
That's a particularly lazy example in that using THAT story as an example is like saying everyone is parroting the news by running around telling everyone that tomorrow it will be sunny with a high in the low 70s. But given your love of the lazy, I'll grant you that example. However, you still need to provide the third portion of my request, which is to explain why you believe that defunding NPR makes no logical sense. At what point does that logic escape you?
I feel like we are actually having a conversation here? So I'll try to respect you with a real answer for once.
The anger at NPR is illogical for a combination of reasons. Just stick with me.
Few facts that I hope you will accept up front..
- NPR has existed for 40 years with little or no public opposition
- Fox News views NPR as a competitor
1. So those two facts alone make it just extremely suspicious that FN would be trying to take down NPR. Any sane person should look at this and say "Is FN pushing this for profits or because they care about America?". Given the nature of the beast that is the modern American Corporation, it's extremely likely this is a profit motivated move by FN.
2. This is a staffing decision made by a company. Companies hire and fire people all the time and no one takes notice. I'm sure NPR has fired many people over it's 40 years. No one cared. FN has never been stronger and more popular than it is now. FN has noted it's influence over congress with the ACORN episode. FN thought it might be able to push this in an attempt to eliminate a competitor. Corporations love to eliminate competition.
So these to summarize these two items - FN is well aware of it's strong influence over public opinion, and FN views NPR as a competitor to be gotten rid of.
But ok, lets say you are *not* mindless and *not* one of the dolts who just do whatever Fox News says. Lets say you are a *real* libertarian. Most libertarians hate mainstream Republicans as much as I do. But *real* libertarians want to cut spending, and funding for CPB/NPR is a very obvious thing that actual real libertarians would want (without FN telling them what to think).
Thats great. I wont even accuse a *real* libertarian of being told what to think (I like Ron Paul).
There are 1000's of Federal Grants and appropriations. [see here]
Anything from saving the elephants to recycling to equipment catalogs for farmers. Trail preservation, research grants, medical insurance for Vets and children, education grants, digital television grants, a "healthy marriage" grant. There are federal subsidies for agriculture, weapons contractors, this list goes on and on. Why are you singling out NPR? But perhaps you are just taking advantage of the anger FN has generated to cut one item while you have the chance. (I can applaud that) Which would mean you admit freely that this is FN generated anger. Which goes back to, why is Fox News generating all of this anger about NPR, but not the 1000's of other grants? Oh that's right, NPR is a competitor, and "Oral Diseases and Disorders Research" does not threaten Fox News' profit margin.
It's not logical that this staffing decision would stand out nationally, except that Fox News used its strong-arm to push it into the public mindset.
-
pBills just got a foot up his ass
-
Are you trying to say GM would still exist without the bailout?
Really though, I thought you people were all made about the "big government control over corporations" or something. And also I thought you were mad about the "big government" giving away money to GM. Also I thought you were mad at "Obama is a soshalist" lie. Now that GM is selling shares again, and federal control is being reduced, this really puts a black eye on the "Obama is a soshulist" lie.
-
Please give us an example of what you're talking about; more specifically, show us a single item here where there is (1) a story from FOX that also includes (2) a majority of the people here specifically "lining up" with that story being reported by Fox, but (3) where the position makes complete logical sense to a majority of the people here, but not to you. Please also explain WHY you are seemingly the only person for whom the story makes no logical sense. Please be specific, and do not reply with your standard link(s) to some obscure source like Bill Nye or Media Matters.
Take all the time you need to fill in these blanks.
We'll wait.
And wait.
1970 to 2010 - LABillzFan comments on NPR funding: (crickets)
October 21, 2010 - Bill O'Reilly: "We’re going to make a big deal out of this on The Factor. Immediate suspension of every taxpayer dollar going into the National Public Radio outfit. We’re going to get legislation. We’re going to freeze it down, so they don’t get any more money. This is outrageous."
October 22, 2010 - LABillsFan: "Defund NPR, let it compete on it's own"
-----
That thread is filled with you folks just parroting what you heard on Fox News. 15 pages, one of the longer threads on this forum.
The Daily show goes on to completely mock how an NPR staffing decision becomes the biggest news story in the country. Bigger than the war, bigger than Chilean miners, bigger than anything. Fox itself is covering this "story" nonstop, top to bottom, and it's just plain ridiculous. A radio station staffing decision.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-25-2010/npr-staffing-decision-2010
A !@#$ing radio station staffing decision.
-
You seem to know exactly what's on Drudge/Fox. So you're either watching it for yourself and basing your negative opinion on first hand knowledge of what you see. Or you are basing your negative opinion on the negative opinions (or assumptions) of others
Sure... the usual pattern goes..
First I see an item on here, and everyone's the majority (there, happy Chef?) position lines up exactly with Fox. It will enrage me because the position held makes no logical sense.
Then a few days later TDS will mock Fox's commentary on said news item, and put into words what I am usually unable to do properly.
-
Isn't that kind of like saying: As someone who doesn't frequent the gay bar, I can tell you first hand that the conversations here very closely resemble those you would hear there?
Exactly. And I'm the one who gets accused of saying what I'm told to say. No one around here ever thinks about anything except what Drudgebreitbartfoxnews tells them to.
So do you actually watch Fox News and read Drudge? Or do you rely on others to make up your mind for you?
Am I to imply by this post that if I watch FoxNews/Drudge then I would be thinking for myself? This is how your wording makes it sound. Either watch Fox/Drudge or rely on others to make up my mind for me. Yes, ok.
-
Have you been sitting up late-nite watching Fox News?
Nope. I've just noticed that discussions on this forum tend to mirror Fox News / Drudge almost exactly. So when discussion happens on here, I become aware of what Fox has been talking about lately.
-
I assume this is not a popular topic, because Fox News is not talking about it.
-
He wasn't "trolling" you dipshit. That is precisely what a "Death Panel" would look like, he just happened to catch himself and knew he would be in deep doo doo for making this "provocative" statement. I saw it live this weekend on ABC's “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” . ANd I can tell you, he wasn't "trolling", he was being dead serious (literally).
Lol. Your definition of death panel is pretty far out there. If thats what you call a death panel, then..
1. You are !@#$ed up in the head.
2. You are really !@#$ed up in the head.
Palin said that there was a Death Panel, Krugman goes on to admit that the Democrats "should have endorsed the Panel that was part of the healthcare reform". It is at the 55 second mark. The original Bill had this "panel" and that panel was going to assess end-of-life medical costs. She wasn't wrong when she said it, which is why when she made her Facebook comment, they immediately took that out of the bill. Amazing what a facebook post can do nowadays
.Even though end-of-living medical costs are through the roof and I do agree that there has to be more efficiency in somehow containing costs in this area. But he is endorsing Death Panels, there is no denying that.
Again, your definition of "death panel" is really really really really !@#$ed up. Come back to reality please.
-
Oh, he was just kidding?
Minimally he does not stand by that position after some times has passed (unlike a Sarah Palin to Russia)
More importantly though, if you read his reasoning, it's sound and very logical.
-
The hero of the liberal cause Krugman believes that this won't be the case moving forward:
My first reaction was "WTF!!??!?"
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/death-panels-and-sales-taxes/
According to him he was basically trolling. I'm less alarmed now.
-
One year ago...
Palin: "There are death panels in the healthcare bill."
Liberals: "How dare this stupid lying whore say that there are death panels in the healthcare bill."
Today...
Liberals: "Well yes, of course there are death panels in the healthcare bill."
Ok Alan Grayson, whatever you say. There are no death panels, get a grip man.
-
Pundits agree he has no chance of winning.
Yes, big "challenge".
-
That $60B is buying the government 70% of the new company, which it expects to sell on the market within the next few years to recoup the bailout ("within the next year" is what I heard, but I have a hard time believing that as anything other than a pipe dream). So it's not a 60-year no-interest loan.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/g-m-offering-could-price-higher-than-expected/
Consider the pipe dreamed (or very close to it)
-
Hey, remember when Obama committed to finishing his whole Senate term, and absolutely insisted he wouldn't quit the Senate to run for president?
I mean, anyone who thinks she quit for idealistic purposes is delusional (my bet is that she did it for the speaker's fees as a private citizen)...but you might want to consider a different point to hammer. Just sayin'.
Sometimes man you just post the weirdest things. -
Obama is an awful President
[citation needed]
-
I appreciate the honesty of most of the leftward posters who responded. I've only casually observed politics for the last year or so (I actually came to TBD to get my mind away from politics...best not think too hard on that one I guess) and I was curious what all the Palin hatred was about, becasue I wasn't really aware of much to justify it.
I now see that her only great vice is being conservative who was unable to come off as a seasoned and polished politician on the national scene within 15 minutes of being cast upon it. I now have more respect for her (and far less for her detractors) than I did when I posted this thread. Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Lol.
Retards gunna retard, no matter what.
-
...unintentionally. Certainly the most ironic.
youtube.com/watch?v=PYD8SShKbnk
This is like dealing with conner. You keep telling yourself that nobody is this stupid.
This guy is literally saying "I want to save America" by destroying America. So, it's like "we had to destroy this village, in order to save it", there buddy?
Who would ever have thought that we'd see the left invoke Vietnam in that context? The irony is astounding.Like most far-left fanatics, this guy's "solution" was poorly thought out. Here's a few key facts he hasn't considered:
1. Conservatives have all the guns.
2. Because of #1, this "rebellion", will last about 15 minutes in most places, perhaps a month in others.
3. The US Army will not be fighting on his side.
4. Take the Army out of the picture, do you really think that leftists can take conservatives, and independents whose hand they have forced, in a fight of any kind?
5. How many of these leftists will actually fight, and not try to get other people to do it for them? How many people is this guy counting on that are actually cowards?
6. Do you think conservatives will sit idly by while you use violence, on any scale?
Because of 1-6, we cannot take his "violence" option seriously. So what's left? Not paying your mortgage? Taking $$$ out of the bank? Most of the people who might consider this action don't have mortgages, and I think the banks can do ok without the $58.74 in their checking account.
Worst of all: this kind of nonsense inspires the crazies. Perhaps that's what this guy is looking to do? Perhaps he hopes to inspire another McVeigh?
Again, this is like conner: they will ALWAYS give you what you need to prove them wrong. You don't have to do anything. Just sit there and let them talk. Sooner or later the crazy and/or the idiocy always comes out...speaking of that, I wonder where Bad Lieutenant is?
Looks like I'm right, again.You are !@#$ing scary man. You really really believe that "libruls" are the bad guys and conservatives are the good guys? !@#$ you and everything you believe.
-
-
Whenever I question Palin's intelligence, I can't help but remember the first VP debate. Her folksy, "oh, Joe, there you go again" attitude and presentation makes her sound like a low-watt light bulb...but she was startlingly well-prepped for that debate, with only a week for her handlers to prep her.
That ain't stupid. She might be ill-informed and buffoonish, but no one is that well-prepped for a debate with one week's work without having some brains.
She was debating Joe Biden though. Not exactly a 120 Watt bulb himself.
In any case, I disagree. She came off looking fairly foolish, however not as foolish as I had hoped before the debate. Overall I remember it being a fairly bland "debate" anyways.
-
I won't waste my time typing anything long here because I know none of you will read and/or take it serious. The thread decided it's because she's portrayed as stupid. However reality is, it's more because she actually is stupid. I mean there are plenty of conservatives out there, but no one is calling Rove or Huckabee or Romney dumb. They all display intelligence when they speak. Watching Palin speak (like Bush) feels like watching your 5 year old kid recite a Christmas poem and you are just cheering for him/her to get it out right.
The Russia thing was symbolic. She said it, but her saying it was not the biggest problem. It's that she stuck with it and defended that position when interviewed later. This is even after she had time to consult her advisers.
-
I like how in this thread he says Obama will be centrist but in the other thread he says Obama will be partisan. Go Magox!
AP - Swedish Court to Seek Arrest of WikiLeaks Founder
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
When you piss off the most powerful people in the world...