OCinBuffalo

1. I don't think these guys did this to get on talk shows. They have already been on talk shows, ever since they dared to say that Obama was going to be in trouble, and that was at least a year ago. 2. I do think that both of these guys can't get work, at the level they expect, due to who is currently leading the Democratic party. So, what else can they do? Go out and claim that the people who do have those jobs aren't doing them very well. What do these guys have to lose? Now, they not only look right, they are right, so perhaps they will get jobs at a high level. But, careerism aside, these guys represent the thoughts of a significant amount of Democrats, and that's why this matters. There are a whole lot of Democrats who aren't leftists, and these guys represent that group. If Obama doesn't get to work, stop blaming Bush, stop "communicating", and get something tangible accomplished that is not hated by 70+% of the country, he is going to lose these people permanently, and 2012 definitely.

Yes. This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical. After all the blaming/character assassination/conspiracy spreading/insane babble and outright lying you and your ilk did and does when it comes to Bush, now, you expect everyone to take an egalitarian approach to Obama? This is exactly as funny to me as the posts I was reading here from 2005 on. Of course we know that some of this isn't Obama's fault. We also knew that some of it wasn't Bush's fault. You were too childish to acknowledge that. So, have you grown up and learned anything? Or are you just trying to cover your ass? Maybe you and Obama will get lucky. Maybe you both can depend on the grace of those people you and he chose to vilify. Maybe not. Maybe you have learned something, maybe not.

Given this, the only rational solution: fire 30% of Democratic journalists and hire Republican journalists in their place. Seems drastic, but so is your model. If this purely a passive activity, rather than an active one, then doesn't that mean people can't help it. And, doesn't that mean: they have to go? Also, are we to assume that "membership in the group" dictates identifying those not in the group 100% of the time? Etc. Etc. Should we expect consistent behavior? Etc. How much deviation?

No, I believe that both sides have the potential to be bad. I believe that conservatives recognize that fact. I believe that liberals, wrapped up in their self-congratulating, self-righteousness, and delusions that somehow joining a group makes them superior....have unfortunately convinced themselves that nothing they do/say is bad. You provide the evidence for my beliefs here on a daily basis. Edit: Oh, and how much do you want to bet that you don't see anything wrong with what this guy is saying?

No doubt about this. Clearly this guy can coach. Honestly, I haven't seen them make many Jauron-like goofs with game management, if any.

Whatever pissant. You misinterpreted my relief as joy. The Bills won. As was said above, don't be a bag of douche.

:beer: :beer: no 0-16! Whew!

This post is for ...lybob: (Sight the target) Please explain: how can conservative talk show hosts (check wind, adjust sight) complain about Palin driving oil companies out of Alaska (slowly drift onto the target, exhale) as though oil production can simply happen automagically (fire, fire, fire) in other states states where there isn't any oil? (Headshot!) What a bunch of "morans"!(PPP meme). See? That's the schematic version of how we do it. Headshot!

It was an interesting piece...sort of. However, I distinctly remember Koppel being biased as hell. He is right to say that objective journalism has never been achieved. That is because the people of his era never really put any effort into it. Also, clearly, we can add Koppel to the long list of people that don't understand the internet. I don't expect him to though, as he is an old dog, and the internet isn't new tricks. Media in general is in a constant state of flux right now. You cannot take benchmarks today, compare them to what was happening 20 years ago, and call that comparison valid. Things will settle down. Sooner or later real, tangible standards will emerge. This system will reach an equilibrium, provided it is allowed to do so without government hinderance. Collectively, we are infants when it comes to our perception of the internet. Therefore, we don't need other infants telling us they know what is best. We also don't need infants telling us what is important, and what isn't. We don't need them leaving out data, or glossing over it, because they don't feel it's important. That is bias, by any rational definition. The internet gives you everything if you want it, and only the high level, if you don't. With regard to "analysis shows" vs. "hard news". We don't have time to read the entire paper anymore. We never cared that much about Koppel et al, we simply didn't have an alternative. Now, people want to quickly hear both sides debate an issue, and then process what they heard, instead of sitting through what amounts to a college lecture. We politely sit through boring ass meetings all day. Why in the hell would we choose the same format for our free time? And this is the crux of this issue: back in the day, the Ted Koppels etc. were it. That meant that they were artificially elevated by a lack of competition. Is it any wonder old Ted is complaining about competition? After 20 years of being in that position, sooner or later you start to believe that it is you, and the not the situation, that created the elevated status. Today, there are a lot more options, a ton more competition, and media people have to be a hell of a lot better at their jobs just to even be noticed. We don't have to accept being talked at by our "betters" like Ted for an hour. If people want full-time news from Bangladesh, they can get it on the internet. I am happy that we have moved on from the bad old days, into an environment where you have to earn a constituency, instead of it being handed to you by default. I am glad that I don't have a small number of people deciding what I need to know. I am glad that the dissemination of information and news has been decentralized, and is no longer the provincial domain of a few elitists. That is the internet working as designed. I am super glad that the one of last of their kind, Dan Rather, was destroyed by the internet. We might as well have a clean break.

Well, let's see: 1. The most...adventurous? woman I have know in that regard was a Catholic(Church every Sunday), Mexican, Republican in Texas. 2. The least in that category was so ardently opposed to other women getting near her that she requires a male gynecologist. She was an Orthodox Lithuanian, Union Democrat in Pittsburgh. Given that, I am guessing that playing for both teams is not necessarily as polarized as some people might assume. She is smoking, and she's not crazy left either. But, clearly the Democrats are the party of yucky women. And, butterfaces too. This is the default setting on this board. Whaaaaaaa! All kidding aside...lybob, you are relatively new here, so let me give you some advice: Don't take this too seriously. Most of the time this is no different than the field house in high school. Rarely, you will see GG, Magox and TPS launch into some "we work in the financial industry, see?" reasonable thread that actually has some real bearing on the world. But the rest of time, it's people waiting to take yet another head shot at each other. This is fun for us, and we like it. I admit that I probably misread that thread and wrongfully accused you of something that should have been blamed on conner(again, the default setting). But, this is still your fault, rookie. If you stand too close to conner, you are inevitably going to catch some stray rounds. And worse, you will also likely get conner goo on you as well.

I know, I know... The fun part, and the part nobody seems to get is: either way we win. If people are going to demand that I look at pictures of hot women...I don't care if they are Republican or Democrat. FTW!

Meh. Made-for-TV girl that makes nerds think they might have a shot at hitting it, "cause she's into science". I'm not saying I wouldn't, but come on, feel the marketing here.

Because the very same groupthink, shout down(pie in the face, anyone?), immediately attack tactics used by scientology is being used by the far-left. In fact L. Ron Hubbard studied the tactics of radicals, and incorporated them into his cult. Take a look at how Tom Cruise behaves when talking about scientology, and then look at how Keith Olbermann behaves when talking about the leftist agenda. Not much difference. In fact, watch this: (Every time I need a laugh, I click on this link) If you deny what they "know", and especially if you can back it up, they go after you personally. Then, think about some of the posts we have seen here in the last 5 years. There are people on this board that are just as committed to crazy, and honestly believe that the reason we scoff at them is because we are trying to keep the truth from coming out. The fact that we correctly identify them as both ignorant and nuts is incomprehensible to them, and the source of much hilarity for us. In both cases, these people have deluded themselves into thinking that not only what they believe is actually useful, but in fact they are the only ones who can "help", because somehow they have "advanced" more than the rest of us. Therefore, they have "a responsibility to educate" us, and that anyone who correctly identifies their lunacy is a "suppressive person". Every time conner says "you hate facts", I think "Tom Cruise, on Tom Cruise, scientologist". The fact that their whole belief system is patently laughable, doesn't cause them to reconsider when soundly challenged, and instead causes them to lash out. Both are examples of cult behavior, and therefore we must free ourselves from these blights on reason.

IF I was in charge at the RNC, I would absolutely move Palin to the front and center. So far I have been right: Palin is slowly becoming immune to attack. If this continues, she will become like a black hole, with all leftist attacks on her being absorbed, along with all the money that was raised to produce them, never to be heard from again. This process has already begun. Palin has the potential to consume so many Democrat resources as to leave them fighting others with leaflets and calls, and only in handful of areas. That's why I move her to the front, especially early on. Make no mistake: Obama will raise a lot of money based on the "Palin threat"...but then he will have to spend all of it. Then, I slowly fade Palin out, and let the real candidate move in. Think about it. The Democrats tried to do this with Dean, and then move in Kerry. It didn't work because Dean didn't cost the Republicans anything by self-destructing. This will work, even if Democrats anticipate it, because they can't help themselves when it comes to Palin, and there is hardly anything she can say that causes her to pull a Dean. AEEEEHHIII!

That is no more offensive than being willfully ignorant or woefully stupid, about the "science" of global warming, or the "science" of Scientology, or the "science" that Affirmative Action has been effective(let me guess, we just haven't had it long enough ), or the "science" that says that Federal control of health care will cut costs, or the "science" that says Communism works(again, "the only reason it has failed is because lesser people have tired it and they didn't know what they were doing. If the better countries were to implement it, it would work". :wallbash: Is there anything more racist than this position? Is it a surprise where it comes from?) Watch the comments to this: they won't be about seeking the truth, hell they won't even be about the topic. They will be personal attacks on me, because that's all the stooges can muster.... I don't think we should be voting for anybody that is willfully ignorant or woefully stupid about anything.

You may think this is sarcastic, but sorry to say: Obama's charisma was this administration's foreign policy plan. No joke. Well actually huge joke, for us. They honestly believed that Obama's mere presence would: 1. Settle the Israel issues. 2. Force China, and the rest of the usual suspects to stop supporting Iran 3. Deal with Iran 4. Force the entire world to accept his climate change agenda...and again China made him look stupid. 5. Plan and execute a way to force China to stop playing games with their currency Notice a pattern here? China owns Obama, and has been owning him since day one. Why? Because China is not Communist any more. They are headed towards feudalism. Apparently nobody told Obama that Chinese ideology is not merely further to the left than he is. China doesn't have any ideology. China is basically turning into an oligarchy, and Obama thinks that somehow he can appeal to their shared values? They have nothing in common with him, or his ideals, and I wouldn't be surprised if they find his "charisma" approach, and the man himself, laughable. All the way back in 2004 I told the Dem political professionals that hung in out my bar in Philly that they better nominate a President that knew how to deal with China and the debt/entitlements. They kept talking about the ennvironment and health care. Sound familiar? How much do you want to bet I could go right back to that bar now, and see those people, recently moved back to Philly, from DC, in a few months? This if for you ...lybob: Looks like I was right, again.

Perhaps. On the other hand, I am fairly certain that recognizing crazy is a bipartisan skill...for the most part. Clearly we have no problem on this board. In other words, I didn't see Democrat as much as I saw crazy douchebag. Who, apparently isn't aware that if he and his buddies start violent trouble, there are millions of people in this country that wouldn't hesitate to put them down, and sleep just fine. And that's the real problem here: this is how nonsense and bluster turns into real a-hole behavior, on both sides. The fact that this ratigan character would even consider putting this guy on his show tells you all you need to know. I wonder, if some anarchist-libertarian type went on Fox with a book that treated violence as merely a bullet point on a presentation, like this tool....what would happen?

...unintentionally. Certainly the most ironic. http://www.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.

I have no idea what a walloon is, or, if it is even a real thing. Having said that, I am happy that our press, and our country is free enough that we tolerate your reprehensible walloon posts, and conners endless drivel(and yes, i did just draw a comparison between you and conner, hahahaha, live with it)... ...without either of you, or any of our reporters, being smashed repeatedly on camera.

(I just saw that RKfast said this, so I will expand) I think that U.S. ranking 36th or whatever is about right. Yes, I know that sounds awful, but consider: 1. WTF does Belgium have to hide? I mean come on, it's not like there's some sort of major issues being decided in the dark, smoke filled rooms of Brussels. 2. In contrast, the U.S. has all kinds of secrets that must be kept, and therefore, we have no choice but to limit what the media knows. This is merely a theoretical debate, and is not an "apples to apples" comparison. When we start keeping score in terms of real death and real destruction in the real world, this theory goes out the window. Is anyone going to die if Belgium's inner most state secrets were to be revealed? In contrast, hundreds of thousands could die, and thousands would almost certainly die, if our secrets were compromised. This debate, and the "rating scale" of these turds is both absurd and irrelevant to the real world. Also, if we didn't keep our secrets as we do, Belgium is put in real danger. So is every other country in Europe. And that's the real point here: this is just another variation on the "Europe knows we protect them, they are insecure about it, so they attack us verbally, but cry every time we even consider reducing our NATO commitments". It's getting old, except for the the dolts like conner who aren't bright enough to see this for what it is.

The Bills drafting #1?

It takes a special kind of affectation to arrive at the conclusion that the TEA party DIDN'T have a massive impact. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it not true. It also doesn't make it disappear. The TEA party is here, it is indestructible because it has no leaders, it will continue having massive impacts on elections, and basically there's nothing anybody can do about it. They aren't going anywhere, and the more you guys misrepresent them, as Magox said, the stronger they get. But don't let me stop you. By all means, keep telling lies about the TEA party. Show us more FUTILITY!. We will die laughing as you refuse to stop feeding the biggest group of trolls in history, and then wonder why there are so many of them and why you lose elections.

I'm not a radical conservative but I bet they would ask you: What's the parallel? Williams was fired for doing his job, and for doing something he has been doing for the last 10 years. Olbermann was immediately fired for flagrantly breaking company policy, in a way that made his boss look ridiculous. Why should anyone react the same exact way to 2 situations that have absolutely nothing in common other than "guy got fired"?

Yeah, but the problem with that is: it's funny, until it's not, if you know what I mean.

Reminds me of something I heard: which teachers do you remember? The ones who were hard on you, and made you tow the line, or the ones who just rubber stamped you through the system, lecturing to the back of the room as though you weren't there? Some people don't seem to understand that policies that are intended to help people are fine, as long as they don't devalue the people they are trying to help, and/or treat them as if they aren't there. There is nothing more uncaring, than treating whole segments of society as nothing more than animals to be fed and cared for, while self congratulating on how "humane and sensitive" you are. This is the argument of the plantation owner.