Jump to content

Lou Dobbs Actually Gets It


Recommended Posts

In 1968 there were only 63 lobbyists in Washington. Today, there are more than 34,000, and lobbyists now outnumber our elected representatives and their staffs by a 2-to-1 margin.

 

Holy sh--. :blink:

 

You know...34000 extra deaths in a year in this country would just be a statistical blip... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I find Lou Dobbs funny. Many people don't find him funny, but I do. It works well for his ratings and it works well for him to sell books. Too bad he eschews history and economic data to do well to make money. Of course that's the beauty of capitalism. It allows you to ignore facts to create capital, because there's one born every minute.

 

I'd alo like to know how Lou Dobbs defines 250 million "middle class" people in US as not having representation in government.

 

Or we can read the opinion of the most recent Nobel laureate about some of these issues (notable that the Nobel was given to an economist who spent his career debunking Keynes' inflation theories)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Lou Dobbs funny.  Many people don't find him funny, but I do.  It works well for his ratings and it works well for him to sell books.  Too bad he eschews history and economic data to do well to make money.  Of course that's the beauty of capitalism.  It allows you to ignore facts to create capital, because there's one born every minute.

 

I'd alo like to know how Lou Dobbs defines 250 million "middle class" people in US as not having representation in government.

 

Or we can read the opinion of the most recent Nobel laureate about some of these issues (notable that the Nobel was given to an economist who spent his career debunking Keynes' inflation theories)

802077[/snapback]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think Lou Dobbs is almost totally full of sh--. But in this instance, he's dead on, even if the "facts" he's using for his conclusions are complete garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, don't get me wrong.  I think Lou Dobbs is almost totally full of sh--.  But in this instance, he's dead on, even if the "facts" he's using for his conclusions are complete garbage.

802302[/snapback]

 

Ever notice that Lou ties everything, and I mean friggin everything, that he talks about back to immigration somehow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever notice that Lou ties everything, and I mean friggin everything, that he talks about back to immigration somehow?

802334[/snapback]

No. I've watched him about three times, for maybe a total of ten minutes. Enough time to know he's not someone I want to waste any time with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  I've watched him about three times, for maybe a total of ten minutes.  Enough time to know he's not someone I want to waste any time with.

802371[/snapback]

 

Hahaha, alright. I've watched him a lot for political psychology/media classes and yeah, everythings about immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, don't get me wrong.  I think Lou Dobbs is almost totally full of sh--.  But in this instance, he's dead on, even if the "facts" he's using for his conclusions are complete garbage.

802302[/snapback]

 

Thus, he's doing a great job of undermining his credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah.  The people who believe him/watch CNN don't care about that anyway.

802388[/snapback]

 

But CNN has the most reporters of any network news channel, so they HAVE to be good! HAVE TO!

 

I mean, how else could you interpret that impressive statistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, don't get me wrong.  I think Lou Dobbs is almost totally full of sh--.  But in this instance, he's dead on, even if the "facts" he's using for his conclusions are complete garbage.

802302[/snapback]

 

So I'm confused. Do you think that he actually gets it? Or is he full of sh--? You've flip-flopped faster than John Kerry on this one. Or is it just that all of the other right wingers here think that he's full of sh--, and you need to fall back in line?

 

I think he gets it better than 99.9999% of our congressmen who will take any side of any issue if the money is right. A congressman can't get elected unless the constituents vote him in. But once he's in, his vote can be for sale to the largest bidder. How many pieces of legislation get passed due to the influence of the lobbyists, PACs, and the industries looking to benefit from them?

 

Look at some of the few major proposals that passed this year. Medicare prescription drug coverage. What was the impetus for this: helping seniors cope with high drug costs or doing what Big Pharma wanted. Sorry, but we got what Big Pharma wanted, an expensive bill that keeps the government from negotiating lower drug prices while giving seniors a modest benefit and sticking taxpayers with the enormous bill.

 

It doesn't matter if the Dems or Repub control Congress, the lobbyists will get what they want and the taxpayers will pay the bill. Our only power is vote them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Lou, let's all change our party affiliation to Independent.

 

That'll learn 'em.

 

News flash to Lou: even IF everyone in the country changed their affiliation to Independent, they'd STILL likely only be able to vote Democrat or Republican. Therefore you're not affecting ANY change by proposing something so shallow as that.

 

Nice column, Lou, you mental midget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm confused.  Do you think that he actually gets it?  Or is he full of sh--?  You've flip-flopped faster than John Kerry on this one.  Or is it just that all of the other right wingers here think that he's full of sh--, and you need to fall back in line?

I stated his conclusion was valid, just not how he arrived at it. The only "conservative" who posted about Dobbs before I said that was GG. Bluefire ain't a "right-winger". You could definitely work for CNN, given your ability to analyze.

I think he gets it better than 99.9999% of our congressmen who will take any side of any issue if the money is right.    A congressman can't get elected unless the constituents vote him in.  But once he's in, his vote can be for sale to the largest bidder.  How many pieces of legislation get passed due to the influence of the lobbyists, PACs, and the industries looking to benefit from them? 

Pretty much all of them. I've been saying the same thing on this board for as long as it's been in existance.

 

Look at some of the few major proposals that passed this year.  Medicare prescription drug coverage.  What was the impetus for this:  helping seniors cope with high drug costs or doing what Big Pharma wanted.  Sorry, but we got what Big Pharma wanted, an expensive bill that keeps the government from negotiating lower drug prices while giving seniors a modest benefit and sticking taxpayers with the enormous bill.

But it was bipartisan!

It doesn't matter if the Dems or Repub control Congress, the lobbyists will get what they want and the taxpayers will pay the bill.  Our only power is vote them out.

802415[/snapback]

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm confused.  Do you think that he actually gets it?  Or is he full of sh--?  You've flip-flopped faster than John Kerry on this one.  Or is it just that all of the other right wingers here think that he's full of sh--, and you need to fall back in line?

 

Yup, you pegged me. I'm a gun-totin, gay-bashin, uber-right wing wacko.

 

It doesn't matter if the Dems or Repub control Congress, the lobbyists will get what they want and the taxpayers will pay the bill.  Our only power is vote them out.

802415[/snapback]

 

I guess it's popular to rail on lobbyists, because they discovered that they can be more organized in exercising their right of free speech in petitioning the government.

 

How about implementing practical solutions to add more transparency to the process that if lobbyists talk with lawmakers, every conversation is publicly disclosed, or how about publicly listing the votes and earmarks of every Congressman? That would be a far better real solution than banning lobbyists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But CNN has the most reporters of any network news channel, so they HAVE to be good!  HAVE TO!

 

I mean, how else could you interpret that impressive statistic?

802391[/snapback]

I interpret it that Fox News does not really do more than four minutes of news an hour and almost all of their programs are opinion shows and not news shows. MSNBC is the same, although they sometimes borrow the NBC reporters. The networks only put on approximately an hour of actual news a day. So CNN wins by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...