drnykterstein

Quoted for truth. And the thing is .. to succeed in broadcasting you have to have an intellect, so naturally all media would lean left. The only time a smart person in media doesn't lean left is when they are paid $10 million a year like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. At that point a man is willing to say whatever needs to be said to keep getting paid, who cares about dignity or telling the truth? .. and I'll put Olbermann in that bucket also. The dude is clearly biased and clearly distorts data from time to time. I've said before that the guy might as well be a republican. Even so, his salary is less half of Bill O'Reilly's.

Just because the last guy couldn't walk and talk at the same time doesn't mean Obama is held by the same handicaps.

I always thought CNN was biased to the republican side. I'll have to dig up some examples of that one of these days. I'm not in the mood right now.

This. Thread should have been over at this point.

uhmm we pick up TO and lose Jason Peters... I dunno if that is upgrading or not. It's typical Bills offseason.

Well, I wouldn't call myself a fan, but I watch it from time to time. He spends 90% of his shows talking about Republicans anyways, its more of a comedy show than news.

Olbermann covered it before it even aired on Leno. He was in Leno's studio and heard it live and talked about it on his 8:00 show.. or whenever Olberman's show is on. I'm not really sure what time. Before Leno in any case. Anyways, now we know why the teleprompter is used so often.

Maybe he himself is "special" you never know

The ability to dissent is what we fight for. It's part of what freedom of speech is all about. You guys know this. First Amendment and all of that. That was my point in my above post anyways. Even though I think the blog is annoying (and hateful).. it's part of our democracy and must allowed to live.

Well.. I suppose the price of free speech is having to put up with annoying crap like that. Whatever. ... also.. so now we know /dev/null follows drudge report

My response is: God damn you *people hate this guy a lot for no reason. *and by "people" I mean dickheads

am i crazy or are the poll options gone?

The 90's did supply some good lookers. http://www.hecklerspray.com/top-26-sexiest...s/200922198.php

Is that concept in opposition or conflict with having the smartest people people in the government offices? (and are you really trying to argue that having elite people in office is bad? wtf?)

1. Having elite people run a country is a good thing 2. Obama is not a socialists. He doesn't claim to be. Socialists do not embrace him, his policies are not socialist. 3. I pulled that second part out of my ass, the same place you are pulling this Obama/socialist crap.

Lol, I have no idea why you are trying to use this AIG thing to smear Obama but I find it both comical and desperate on your part. Eric Cantor and John Boehner caused this AIG thing. They had the chance to pass legislation to block this and they took out the wording that democrats put in to block this. And now that it's all out in the open they are coming out publicly against AIG, after the fact.

None are particularly healthy. Plenty of trans-fats and hormones and fake meats and chemicals parading as food served at all of those places.

Scrubs is the only one I watch

Name one iota of nonsense. Bush is a wanted man in the EU right now.

Ya I agree, misrepresenting someone else's position is a terrible thing to do. If Bush didn't hate black people and someone said he did, those people need to be called on it.

No they are supposed to make inaccurate threads that say "this administration doesn't give a rat's ass about your war-related disabilities and injuries" and entirely misrepresent Obama's position in an attempt to harvest mislead hate towards him.

Ok, after reading a bit more. This is not black and white, and there *are* problems that need to be fixed somehow. Exploring options to fix a problem is a great idea by Obama. This idea basically asks the insurance companies to cover the costs of people whom they insure. In other words: if you insure someone against injury you should have to actually pay for the injuries they sustain. So I think this concept is looking to try to fix two problems Insurance companies charging it's customers premiums and not having to pay for injuries because the VA does. Numerous cases of veterans faking injuries and getting a lifetime VA payment out of it. I'm sure Obama will figure out some solution to this. And to you dick bags who are accusing Obama of doing something wrong: This is a proposal/plan/idea and *not* a law. Nothing has been done yet, so.. STFU.

Are you pulling this information our of your ass or something? Where on earth did you ever get the idea that Trent Edwards was unsure of himself in any way? That guy is nothing but a big bright ball of confidence.

Hello! Please explain this: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...p-for-veterans/ http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi...dent_pledg.html http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...yzC_EwD96V9VO80 http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/03/mili...ograms_031609w/ http://www.projo.com/news/veteransjournal/...13.35ce7a0.html No one has shown a greater desire to improve veteran treatment and benefits than Barack Obama. I can't help but assume that your Steve Robertson is misinformed and this will all turn out ok in the end.

Well if it is was you say it is, then the title is deceptive. Not a good way to get me to trust anything that film would say.