·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"
WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"Follow
Well... no. But at least you've convinced yourself even if you've convinced no one else.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
0
I just proved with numbers your theory that two simultaneous wars not effecting the economy is incorrect. That was easy.
I just proved with numbers your theory that two simultaneous wars not effecting the economy is incorrect. That was easy.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
0
I just proved with numbers your theory that two simultaneous wars not effecting the economy is incorrect. That was easy.
I just proved with numbers your theory that two simultaneous wars not effecting the economy is incorrect. That was easy.
Affecting
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
At least you're better at English than you are at Math or Religion. You should focus on that.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
I'm saying make no one pay for it except those who listen to it. If people want to donate to NPR, or advertise on NPR, let them do so like every other radio station in the country. Why should I have to pay a dime for NPR so that someone else can listen to it "for free"?
Didn't they cut NPRs funding? It's not like they needed it anyway. Of course I would rather my tax dollars go to NPR than the wars. Let the people fighting the wars pay for it.
Edited, Apr 14th 2011 10:05pm by Ailitardif
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.
Edited, Apr 14th 2011 9:10pm by Jophiel
Legitimate New Source wrote:
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.
Edited, Apr 14th 2011 9:10pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.
Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)
***** ***** *****
****** ****** ******.
****** ****** ******.
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.
Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.
And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS. I mean, I like them, and I'd be sad to see them go, but that's not the most compelling argument. I think that commercial outlets would be able to fill the void that they'd leave.
Edited, Apr 14th 2011 10:49pm by Eske
Edited, Apr 14th 2011 10:49pm by Eske
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Have you considered that a dollar of funding in one program might be a better investment than a dollar in a different program?
And have you considered that the same dollar left in the hands of the person who originally earned it, might just be an even better investment than both of them?
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.
Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.
And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.
Edited, Apr 14th 2011 9:53pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.
Republicans think that the only non-biased news sources are Fox, CNS News and LifeNews?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.
You don't need to take opinion polls of fox to prove it's biased though, that can be done objectively by evaluating their content and by grading the amount of misinformation espoused by viewers of the network relative to those who do not. Spoiler alert: that was already done.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS.
Quote:
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion.
That's interesting, because the GDP in 2008 was about 14 trillion. Considering about 20% of the population made over $100,000, there should have been about 1.8 trillion there even if that entire 20% made ONLY $100,000 a year. With a GDP of about 14 trillion, and considering the wealthiest 1% of Americans have as much money as the bottom 90% combined, well, the wealthy are making out like bandits if that's all the IRS can squeeze from them.
Sounds to me like "taxable income" means "what they were actually required to pay" and not "what they could have paid if it weren't for tax cuts and loopholes."
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.
Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.
And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.
There's no need for a lot of the things the government spends money on. I'm just saying that as a taxpayer, I would rather my tax dollars go to NPR than the current wars we are fighting (not saying all wars are bad, just the ones we are engaged in now).
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?
By providing credible information supporting your claims and understanding that, even if the other participant isn't going to ever agree with you, you've gotten the information out there for everyone else to see.
Works for me when talking to you and Gbaji.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?
By providing credible information supporting your claims and understanding that, even if the other participant isn't going to ever agree with you, you've gotten the information out there for everyone else to see.
Works for me when talking to you and Gbaji.
One of the major keys is to provide information which doesn't disprove your theory within the first two paragraphs. Which you do all the time Varus. But it is funny so please continue to do so.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Ryan's budget bill hits the House for a vote this afternoon. Republicans get the choice of:
(A) Vote for a bill that will never become law and go on record as supporting the dismantling of Medicare/Medicaid.
-or-
(B) Vote against the bill and be portrayed as repudiating the grand GOP plan for government austerity.
Have fun, guys.
(A) Vote for a bill that will never become law and go on record as supporting the dismantling of Medicare/Medicaid.
-or-
(B) Vote against the bill and be portrayed as repudiating the grand GOP plan for government austerity.
Have fun, guys.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Credible.
As in "You don't seem very credible when you're obviously illiterate."
As in "You don't seem very credible when you're obviously illiterate."
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 246
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (246)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC