PDA

View Full Version : Reagan: The Original Teabagger


Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 07:45 AM
Maher gets it right again, especially about Obama buying into the Reagan mythology.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/imjL8dfJVkA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

barryr
06-11-2013, 08:29 AM
Bill Maher? The guy liberals pick and choose when to quote him? Funny, didn't see him quoted when he stated a couple months ago outrage about being taxed to death in CA and hinting he may move if it continues.

But the lovely "teabag" stuff again. Liberals just love to believe they are for tolerance, but on one side, you believe you are such loving people by supporting gay marriage, but then you spend most days calling people you don't like gay or gay terms, so deep down it shows you must think being gay is wrong since there would be no reason to people such things. Yeah, I know logic is difficult for most liberals to understand, but spend the day figuring it out. You support gay rights, yet mock people with calling them gay who aren't gay. This is how you support gay people? Nice. The hypocrisy, contradictions, and hypocrisy reigns supreme in these forums. There is no serious discussions around here because there can't be when this garbage is done 24/7.

Even now, with you liberals admit to being wrong and state the Patriot Act was ok when Bush instituted it? Nah, of course not, but it's good now because Obama is in charge. You guys just look even more dumb by the day with how you change stances solely based on which party is in charge and comes up with someone. And yet you claim to be the "deep" thinkers. Ridiculous.

Keep up the great work around here. No wonder so many don't post around here anymore. That's what happens when liberals are running the show. Boredom and hypocrisy is what you get. Congrats.

Requiem
06-11-2013, 08:37 AM
The generalization train that is barryr strikes again.

houghtam
06-11-2013, 09:06 AM
The generalization train that is barryr strikes again.

Typical drive-by Barry. Never quotes or responds directly to anyone. Never cites specific examples. Never man enough to do anything but snipe from the grassy knoll.

Oh and of course speaks in such generalities as to leave the reader wondering if he even understands what he himself is arguing, let alone whether he read or understood the points of view of others.

TonyR
06-11-2013, 09:12 AM
^ And then he complains that "There is no serious discussions around here". Hilarious!

Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 10:55 AM
Bill Maher? The guy liberals pick and choose... blah, blah blah.


Didn't watch.

houghtam
06-11-2013, 10:59 AM
^ And then he complains that "There is no serious discussions around here". Hilarious!

I guess we shouldn't be surprised. It's the same thing Republican congressmen have been doing to Obama for 4 years.

The best part is his constant complaining that liberal media doesn't report on stuff, and then only on stuff that suits them (as if he's ever listened to liberal media), and then when we point out its a falsehood, we're "selectively quoting".

What a worthless jackhole.

cutthemdown
06-11-2013, 10:45 PM
Liberal media reports on things but how you present it means a lot. They bury negative stories off the frnt page, don't give it a titilating headline etc etc. Fox does same thing if its a story that is bad for liberals its blasted on the front page in big letters. If its bad for repubs its probably the 4th or 5th story in the pecking order.

Mnay liberal papers report the story more like Repubs fish for scandals in shallow pool! While Fox news will say Obamas scandals threaten to destroy his 2nd term! lets not blow smoke up eachothers asses acting like that isn't how it is.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 06:16 AM
I don't know, cut. Has the so called "liberal media" been "hiding" these 3 recent "scandals"?

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:07 PM
I don't know, cut. Has the so called "liberal media" been "hiding" these 3 recent "scandals"?

It's not that they don't cover, or that fox doesn't cover liberal stories so to speak. Its that both sides can use tricks to make things seem less or more serious. You know fox news will put in big letters SCANDALS ROCK WASHINGTON.... but at MSNBC it will be No Proof White House Knew, etc etc.

So IMO it's never that the media refuses to cover, its how they spin it that shows who they are beholden to.

At this point Tony there are so many scandals its pretty hard to ignore don't you think?

houghtam
06-12-2013, 12:39 PM
It's not that they don't cover, or that fox doesn't cover liberal stories so to speak. Its that both sides can use tricks to make things seem less or more serious. You know fox news will put in big letters SCANDALS ROCK WASHINGTON.... but at MSNBC it will be No Proof White House Knew, etc etc.

So IMO it's never that the media refuses to cover, its how they spin it that shows who they are beholden to.

At this point Tony there are so many scandals its pretty hard to ignore don't you think?

Do you even watch msnbc? Given the bolded atatement, you do not. How can you comment on what you don't know?

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:43 PM
Do you understand the theory of an example?

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:44 PM
My opinion is that all media reports everything, its how they report it that shows the bias.

B-Large
06-12-2013, 01:00 PM
It's not that they don't cover, or that fox doesn't cover liberal stories so to speak. Its that both sides can use tricks to make things seem less or more serious. You know fox news will put in big letters SCANDALS ROCK WASHINGTON.... but at MSNBC it will be No Proof White House Knew, etc etc.

So IMO it's never that the media refuses to cover, its how they spin it that shows who they are beholden to.

At this point Tony there are so many scandals its pretty hard to ignore don't you think?

Other than Megyn Kelly and Sheppard Smith, and Madow form their respective partisan cable news employers, the rest of those channels are junk. The absolute worst segment I have ever seen is Sharpton's show on MSNBC.... what unabashed partisan drivel.

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 01:12 PM
LOL Sharpton has a show? I have to watch some of that.

B-Large
06-12-2013, 01:25 PM
LOL Sharpton has a show? I have to watch some of that.

Its dreadful, maybe the worst show I have seen on a cable news channel- its actually embrassing to even bring it up here, I am almsot ashamed.

houghtam
06-12-2013, 01:54 PM
Other than Megyn Kelly and Sheppard Smith, and Madow form their respective partisan cable news employers, the rest of those channels are junk. The absolute worst segment I have ever seen is Sharpton's show on MSNBC.... what unabashed partisan drivel.

I encourage anyone with a taste for unintentional comedy to tune in to Sharpton's show. Regardless of what your political leanings, the sheer delight of watching someone who does not belong on camera actually try to HOST a show is hilarious. For someone who is actually quite an eloquent speaker, his grip on the job of talk show host is...something else.

As far as other personalities, Chris Matthews is another on MSNBC who does a fairly decent job of telling both sides, or at least encouraging debate. His problem (if you're the type who thinks TV personalities must be balanced) is that he makes no bones about where he stands, and he's got more experience in Washington than most who do that type of job, so he often talks over his guests.

I also don't mind watching The Cycle, but that's only because of the pop culture stuff...its basically The View for people under 40, and because I like imagining myself cockslapping the atheism right off SE Cupp's face. LOL

B-Large
06-12-2013, 02:02 PM
I encourage anyone with a taste for unintentional comedy to tune in to Sharpton's show. Regardless of what your political leanings, the sheer delight of watching someone who does not belong on camera actually try to HOST a show is hilarious. For someone who is actually quite an eloquent speaker, his grip on the job of talk show host is...something else.

As far as other personalities, Chris Matthews is another on MSNBC who does a fairly decent job of telling both sides, or at least encouraging debate. His problem (if you're the type who thinks TV personalities must be balanced) is that he makes no bones about where he stands, and he's got more experience in Washington than most who do that type of job, so he often talks over his guests.

I also don't mind watching The Cycle, but that's only because of the pop culture stuff...its basically The View for people under 40, and because I like imagining myself cockslapping the atheism right off SE Cupp's face. LOL

Matthews cuts people off too often when he doesn't like where their point is going... but it at least an attempt to boht sides getting their say. My favorite segment is typically your routine liberal MSNBC constribtor and Mike Steele on the other side... you can tell eventually Steele just gives up and has a polite smile... I kind of chuckle... it is no different in The Five on Fox, no matter what the chubby liberal says the other 4 just start talking over him... that must be frustrating.

Arkie
06-12-2013, 02:11 PM
Maher gets it right again, especially about Obama buying into the Reagan mythology.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/imjL8dfJVkA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. If he was the original, then we need to find another party that's for less government.

B-Large
06-12-2013, 02:26 PM
Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. If he was the original, then we need to find another party that's for less government.

Government has grown under every President since Reagan. Heck, the last Conservative Nationalized Education and added an unfunded addition to the largest more expensive enititlement program in the country- I also believe his job creation in the Public Sector outpaced his Private Sector numbers.

Its why I think the GOP claim to small government is complete nonsense (except for a few reps, there are still some small Government people in the GOP like Tom Coburn)- its not who wants to reduce government, it should be who grows it at a slower pace.... lol

peacepipe
06-12-2013, 03:02 PM
Government has grown under every President since Reagan. Heck, the last Conservative Nationalized Education and added an unfunded addition to the largest more expensive enititlement program in the country- I also believe his job creation in the Public Sector outpaced his Private Sector numbers.

Its why I think the GOP claim to small government is complete nonsense (except for a few reps, there are still some small Government people in the GOP like Tom Coburn)- its not who wants to reduce government, it should be who grows it at a slower pace.... lol

I wasn't aware GWB added to welfare.

elsid13
06-12-2013, 03:20 PM
Government has grown under every President since Reagan. Heck, the last Conservative Nationalized Education and added an unfunded addition to the largest more expensive enititlement program in the country- I also believe his job creation in the Public Sector outpaced his Private Sector numbers.

Its why I think the GOP claim to small government is complete nonsense (except for a few reps, there are still some small Government people in the GOP like Tom Coburn)- its not who wants to reduce government, it should be who grows it at a slower pace.... lol

Government has not be growing in the last 4 years. Government employment levels are lowest they have been in almost 40 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html

houghtam
06-12-2013, 03:27 PM
Government has not be growing in the last 4 years. Government employment levels are lowest they have been in almost 40 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html

More proof that Obama is the worst socialist in history.

Arkie
06-12-2013, 03:36 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fS_8N7QpuSM/TuwTacndmfI/AAAAAAAAGF8/SGmWmC-qjFw/s1600/Bloated+Spending.jpg

baja
06-12-2013, 05:25 PM
Government has not be growing in the last 4 years. Government employment levels are lowest they have been in almost 40 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html

Check the numbers for the much less regulated private contractors working directly and often solely for the federal government.

Much more stealth system.

B-Large
06-12-2013, 09:11 PM
[QUOTE=elsid13;3861227]Government has not be growing in the last 4 years. Government employment levels are lowest they have been in almost 40 years.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm

That doesn't sound like it hot smaller in scope nor expenditure