drnykterstein

When you piss off the most powerful people in the world...

Ok. What part of "The constitution. The document that only protects US citizens accused of crimes committed inside the U.S." was true?

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.

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.

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 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-25-2010/moment-of-zen---geraldo-rivera-weighs-in-on-juan-williams-firing A !@#$ing radio station staffing decision.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. Again, your definition of "death panel" is really really really really !@#$ed up. Come back to reality please.

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.

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.

Ok Alan Grayson, whatever you say. There are no death panels, get a grip man.

Yes, big "challenge".

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/g-m-offering-could-price-higher-than-expected/ Consider the pipe dreamed (or very close to it)

Sometimes man you just post the weirdest things.

[citation needed]

Lol. Retards gunna retard, no matter what.

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.

0

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!