Ion01 1 #51 August 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I have listened to him on occasion and find him distasteful. He is very disrespectful/rude to guests that don't agree with his point of view. I don't get much out of watching 2 or 3 people all talking loudly over each other to make their point. I have only seen approx. ten different talk shows, and all of them were exactly like this. Can't understand why the people ever watch this crap. A lot of people do it seems or else they wouldn't show it. I guess the sheep like to be driven into a frenzy with this stuff. Fox is probably the worst channel which is why I can't stand it. Larry King is polite if you wanted to see something without the anger. So typical, no facts or proof....just alienate and make fun. Is this all you are capable of doing. If anyone is the sheep it would be you as you are unwilling to look at all information and make your own decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #52 August 10, 2009 Quote The wall of separation that the Constitution built between church and state makes it clear that the founding fathers wanted the two to remain separate - and I agree. The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse or Congress is this -- You cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and Politicians .... It creates a hostile work environment. HaHa. Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 0 #53 August 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I have listened to him on occasion and find him distasteful. He is very disrespectful/rude to guests that don't agree with his point of view. I don't get much out of watching 2 or 3 people all talking loudly over each other to make their point. I have only seen approx. ten different talk shows, and all of them were exactly like this. Can't understand why the people ever watch this crap. A lot of people do it seems or else they wouldn't show it. I guess the sheep like to be driven into a frenzy with this stuff. Fox is probably the worst channel which is why I can't stand it. Larry King is polite if you wanted to see something without the anger. So typical, no facts or proof....just alienate and make fun. Is this all you are capable of doing. Typical of what? you judge me from a handful of posts, that is the only typical thing here. I need to prove that I don't like fox? that is a dumb request. Quote If anyone is the sheep it would be you as you are unwilling to look at all information and make your own decision. I made my decision a long time ago not to watch Hannity. I don't like the way he presents his information and the way he treats his guests. Why are you so upset over me not liking Hannity? I did look at the information myself and I'm Ok with Obama's "radical" relationships. I think that you and others read way too much into them because you have been fed biased information day in day out by people like Hannity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tCbMFp7eUo is an example of a democrat sheep, I'll leave it up to your imagination who the dog is. And these are republican sheep http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYJaMGcrtWE think of Hannity as one of the dogs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #54 August 10, 2009 Quote I had to double-check the original post's date. Wow. It was posted August 8, 2009???? um, the election was last fall.In spite of all the stuff we have to deal with today, the Republicans are still waving Wright & Ayers around. So you're saying time makes them less relevant? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #55 August 10, 2009 Quote>Can we agree that the federal government needs to shrink, not expand? Definitely. Then why do support a President that wants to make it bigger than it has ever been? And by the way, everyone is waiting for you to respond to this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3637172;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #56 August 10, 2009 >Then why do support a President that wants to make it bigger than it has ever been? Because he makes a better president than the other candidate who wanted to make it bigger than it ever has been. (BTW, I think Obama was a better option than McCain - but I would have preferred Ron Paul to both.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #57 August 10, 2009 Quote And by the way, everyone is waiting for you to respond to this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3637172;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed; Yes; in particular, see post #46. Eh, what the hell; I'll quote it: Quote [Chuckakers] It's amazing how quiet this thread is. And not a word from billvon. Hmmmm.[Andy9o8] Oooh, good point. He has an obligation to rebut this thread - or else, what's he hiding? He must be afraid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #58 August 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteI don't think it was a bow, but that is hardly important it is what you think that is important, you've already decided and condemned him. So if it wasn't a bow, what was he doing, checking out his watch while he shook his hand? Get real. It's an accurankle! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG5qyHjQXng-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #59 August 10, 2009 Quote Let's put politics aside on this one. That sounds good. I can play by that. QuoteThe one thing no one can ignore is Mr. Obama's relationships, new and old. Some of the people he has made his closest friends and allies are - by anyone's standards - very radical. That - and that only - is the topic of this thread. Okay, so we can expect to read some objective standard to support that, yes? Since you’ve indicated that you want to put politics aside. Your standard. Quote However, if you can't see Obama's real agenda through his cool, calm nature, YOU need open YOUR eyes. Look at the people he has spent years running with. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc. And how about the people he has placed in his administration as Czars (which don't require the scrutiny of Congressional confirmation and can't be subpoenaed) like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (on record advocating medical prioritization by age and "value to society"), Van Jones (admitted communist radical), John Holdren (who advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization, and a "Planetary Regime"). Are the assertions quoted above an example of the type of conclusion one would come to based the reporting like Mr. Hannity’s program? Quote So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Or is that quote based on what you consider or representative of well researched reporting? One can argue the subjectively of the assertions and certainly one could argue regarding how political the assertions are. Nonetheless, putting subjective interpretations aside … even if for a moment one assumes that the subjective assertions represent truth (for the sake of discussion), there are factual errors. Objective facts. Not subjective interpretations. The head of OSTP, which was established in 1976 under Pres Ford by PL 94-282, is neither a "Czar" nor unaccountable. The position requires Senate Confirmation; Dr. Holdren was confirmed in March. The position is as accountable/subject to Congressional scrutiny as any Cabinet Secretary, although with a lot less real power, e.g., very small budget and limited ability to impact budgets directly. OSTP has a skewed high prestige to power ratio. (Head of OMB has high power and low prestige relatively; it’s also Senate confirmed.) Other than my assessment of relative power prestige ratios (which is subjective but not political), there is nothing political about that … just facts. Assuming that the quoted assertions are based on the type of reporting cited (i.e., you’re just relaying what you’ve heard; therefore it’s not your fault), those simple, objective factual errors suggest that “well researched” is not the case minimally w/r/t this topic … or perhaps there’s some other explanation? I don’t have cable and was on a plane yesterday evening, so was unable to watch the Fox News special. What was revealed? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #60 August 10, 2009 Quote Quote Let's put politics aside on this one. That sounds good. I can play by that. QuoteThe one thing no one can ignore is Mr. Obama's relationships, new and old. Some of the people he has made his closest friends and allies are - by anyone's standards - very radical. That - and that only - is the topic of this thread. Okay, so we can expect to read some objective standard to support that, yes? Since you’ve indicated that you want to put politics aside. Your standard. I could start with Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko. Oh but wait - he never heard Wright say anything racist, seperatist, or anti-American, only knew Bill Ayers through a purely coincidental involvement in a foundation and didn't launch his political career in his home, and of course he didn't buy a chunk of land from Rezko for a third of its' actual value. Quote However, if you can't see Obama's real agenda through his cool, calm nature, YOU need open YOUR eyes. Look at the people he has spent years running with. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc. And how about the people he has placed in his administration as Czars (which don't require the scrutiny of Congressional confirmation and can't be subpoenaed) like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (on record advocating medical prioritization by age and "value to society"), Van Jones (admitted communist radical), John Holdren (who advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization, and a "Planetary Regime"). Are the assertions quoted above an example of the type of conclusion one would come to based the reporting like Mr. Hannity’s program? The above assertions came from numerous mainstream sources and from the radicals themselves. In the case of Wright, I've heard the sermons. No additional research is necessary after that. Ayers is on record admitting what he did (and said his organization didn't do enough), nobody questions the Rezko/Obama land deal because even Obama admitted to it. Emanuel has written extensively about his beliefs, as have Jones and Holdren. So no, the above assertions did not come from Hannity's reporting. To be honest, I don't watch his show on any regular basis, but even if I did I wouldn't believe him as a sole source for information. Quote So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Or is that quote based on what you consider or representative of well researched reporting? My point was that when I do my own research from multiple sources on both sides of the issues, I don't find that things reported on Fox are wrong. One can argue the subjectively of the assertions and certainly one could argue regarding how political the assertions are. Nonetheless, putting subjective interpretations aside … even if for a moment one assumes that the subjective assertions represent truth (for the sake of discussion), there are factual errors. Objective facts. Not subjective interpretations. The head of OSTP, which was established in 1976 under Pres Ford by PL 94-282, is neither a "Czar" nor unaccountable. The position requires Senate Confirmation; Dr. Holdren was confirmed in March. The position is as accountable/subject to Congressional scrutiny as any Cabinet Secretary, although with a lot less real power, e.g., very small budget and limited ability to impact budgets directly. OSTP has a skewed high prestige to power ratio. (Head of OMB has high power and low prestige relatively; it’s also Senate confirmed.) My bad - I didn't mean to imply that Holdren is a Czar. However, my statement stands on the others. Other than my assessment of relative power prestige ratios (which is subjective but not political), there is nothing political about that … just facts. Assuming that the quoted assertions are based on the type of reporting cited (i.e., you’re just relaying what you’ve heard; therefore it’s not your fault), those simple, objective factual errors suggest that “well researched” is not the case minimally w/r/t this topic … or perhaps there’s some other explanation? I don’t have cable and was on a plane yesterday evening, so was unable to watch the Fox News special. What was revealed? I haven't watched it yet, but I will. On the subject, I'd love to hear your take on Jones and Emanuel in particular. Jones is an admitted communist and Emanuel has written extensively about medical prioritization based on things like age, mental condition, and "vaule to society". And oh yeah, they both work for Mr. O. /MargChuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #61 August 10, 2009 Quote Quote I had to double-check the original post's date. Wow. It was posted August 8, 2009???? um, the election was last fall.In spite of all the stuff we have to deal with today, the Republicans are still waving Wright & Ayers around. So you're saying time makes them less relevant? Yes, that's what I'm saying. Wright & Ayers are not on the whitehouse staff. They're not working for Obama, so yes, they're not relevant. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #62 August 10, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I had to double-check the original post's date. Wow. It was posted August 8, 2009???? um, the election was last fall.In spite of all the stuff we have to deal with today, the Republicans are still waving Wright & Ayers around. So you're saying time makes them less relevant? Yes, that's what I'm saying. Wright & Ayers are not on the whitehouse staff. They're not working for Obama, so yes, they're not relevant. We'll have to disagree. I think every relationship my President has had in his adult life are important, especially when they are so telling.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #63 August 10, 2009 QuoteWe'll have to disagree. I think every relationship my President has had in his adult life are important, especially when they are so telling. Do you feel that way about GWB's relationship with his coke dealer? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #64 August 10, 2009 >Do you feel that way about GWB's relationship with his coke dealer? That's COMPLETELY different. It's unfair to look into the backgrounds of Republicans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #65 August 10, 2009 Quote Quote We'll have to disagree. I think every relationship my President has had in his adult life are important, especially when they are so telling. Do you feel that way about GWB's relationship with his coke dealer? As much as I do about Mr. Obama's relationship with his coke dealer...and pot dealer too.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #66 August 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteWe'll have to disagree. I think every relationship my President has had in his adult life are important, especially when they are so telling. Do you feel that way about GWB's relationship with his coke dealer? Or how about GWB's relationship with his own grandfather? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 0 #67 August 10, 2009 QuoteI'm actually glad these fucking jerkoffs stupid assholes keep doing this. Guaranteeing four more years in 2012, baby! (Not referring to anyone on DZ.com, of course.) I'll bet you $100.00 bucks right now he is not president again.....Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #68 August 10, 2009 We should all bet Andy that amount, but then again he is a lawyer and would file bankruptcy or something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #69 August 10, 2009 Quote Watch live or record. This may be quite an eye opener for many. Here's the details from the e-mail: What: Documentary about Barack Obama When: August 9, 2009 8:00 PM Where: Your Home or Gather with Friends A Comfy Chair Mark your calendar - Gather with Friends This Sunday Because on Fox Sean Hannity, of Hannity & Colmes ~ Fox news, is going to air a very important documentary about Barack Obama, Sunday night at 8:00 PM central / 9 PM eastern. He stated on the air this evening that no one in the news media was willing to do this. Hannity is going back to Obama's earlier days, showing even then his ties to radical professors, friends, spiritual advisers, etc., he stated this evening that he will show in detail his ties to Rev. Wright for 20+ yrs. How he was participating with this man, and not for the reasons he states! He has uncovered more of Obama's radical leaders and we will see things that no one in the media is willing to put out there. This will be a night that you will learn more about Obama than ever before Hannity is very passionate about this program and asked that everyone please, please watch~~ Sunday night, 8 PM. CT Well crap! I recorded it and nothing about BO and his old cronies. I enjoyed the interview with Don and Diedre Imus from NM. I was hoping to see Fred Imus but he was not present. Is he still alive?Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #70 August 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWe'll have to disagree. I think every relationship my President has had in his adult life are important, especially when they are so telling. Do you feel that way about GWB's relationship with his coke dealer? Or how about GWB's relationship with his own grandfather? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar You can't control who you are related to, good or bad. You do control who you choose to associate with outside your family.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #71 August 11, 2009 Quote Uh, sorry - there's a bit of a difference. Michael Moore's stuff is filled with blatant lies, and those lies have been well documented. So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Funniest statement of the day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rivetgeek 0 #72 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteabsolutely correct, I mean, I just foudn this picture of Obama hanging out with THIS radical extremist - he is not to be trusted..... Just sayin' http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp Just sayin, stop with the FUD. It seems republicans just have nothing other than ridiculous conspiracy theories to try and hold against Obama. Unlike when Bush was around, we had PLENTY of real shit to hold against that drunken pretzel choking, draft-dodging coke head.~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #73 August 11, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote We'll have to disagree. I think every relationship my President has had in his adult life are important, especially when they are so telling. Do you feel that way about GWB's relationship with his coke dealer? Or how about GWB's relationship with his own grandfather? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar You can't control who you are related to, good or bad. You do control who you choose to associate with outside your family. Hm. Two different answers come to mind. I know! I'll do both of 'em! 1. Ah, so you admit that vitriolic attacks on Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton are beneath contempt. Great! 2. Ah, but people learn at the feet of their close relatives. Prescott Bush started a political family that produced George H.W. "41" and George "43". Presumably, they took their formative lessons from him. They certainly never repudiated him, did they? Well, Prescott's business dealings probably helped the Nazi regime. So what does that say about Dubya? Seig heil, baby! Fair's fair, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #74 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuote Uh, sorry - there's a bit of a difference. Michael Moore's stuff is filled with blatant lies, and those lies have been well documented. So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Funniest statement of the day. Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #75 August 11, 2009 Quote Unlike when Bush was around, we had PLENTY of real shit to hold against that drunken pretzel choking, draft-dodging coke head. The thing I like most about the libs is their tolerant nature.Sheople of the media. Takes all kinds.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
