Really? You're in favor of our leaders ducking hard questions? I want Chris Matthews grilling the next Republican President, just as I'd like to see Chris Wallace put President Obama's feet to the fire.
Nope, no problem with it. I'd like to see it as well, sure. But if a show is dedicated to attacking the administration and pursuing an agenda, I think that is fucked up, and I would have no problem with the president pretty much saying "Fuck You" to them. With Fox, its just amazing how they now say they are the only news station keeping the administration accountable, when its such an amazing 180 from what they were doing when Bush was president. That's how you know its fucked up. "Fair and Balanced" is the problem. The media should be the lifeblood of a democracy, keeping EVERYONE in check. But knowing that you are tilting the news (and from their memo's they know) and being a predominantly conservative station (Except for Shep Smith who is rad) and then getting your panties in a bunch when the Pres. shuts you out? Give me a break. Anyway, i'm off to class.
Seriously? You still don't understand the difference between news and opinion? You really lump Brit Hume or Chris Wallace in with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?
That was the best you could come up with? Someone in a roundtable saying "I don't think FOX should talk about someone from CNN"? Pretty weak.
This is easily the most important thing going on IN THE WORLD. Yet no one is talking about it. One thing that is definitely not true is that this has anything to do with either Bush or Obama. Rather, it has everything in the world to do with the PRIVATE ownership of the Federal Reserve which is neither Federal nor a reserve. The FED owns the politicians, not the other way around. What Obama (or previously Bush) says is simply a distraction from the far greater story of the actual ownership of physical resources in the world. Some of this is achieved by millitary dominance, the majority is achieved by monetary/financial dominance. When the Dollar goes so will go the Old World Order, which of course will usher in the New. That is the entire point. It's all over European news, meanwhile we are arguing over the Olympics and whether Obama should give back a Nobel Peace Prize. It's sad really. You Right Wingers (And lefites) are worried about National Soverignty? Stop wasting time with Tea Parties and support the G-20/WTO/IMF protests, you know the protests that are BRUTALLY suppressed. It is Central Banks that create the Warfare/Welfare states playing the War hawks off the Welfare supporters not realizing it's two sides of the same coin that slowly rob a country of it's wealth. If the Tea Party movement was a threat to some Super-national elite then you better believe they would be quashed as well. Start protesting the Federal Reserve. Our soverignty is being chipped away at by the Central Banking cartel that's where the threat lies. Obama is just a puppet like Bush to distract you from the puppet masters. Look into fractional reserve banking and the Central Banking system it all becomes quite clear.
Well they do have 24 hours of news to carry. Personally I'd like to see all of the 24 hours news channels eliminated. Maybe 4 hours of news and updates when necessary. But the local networks seem to be marching the other way.
While I find your post to be slightly paranoid I also agree that all of the free trade proposals only hurt the U.S. especially when currency manipulation is so prevalent among some larger countries who will go unnamed. And yes, the decline of the dollar is a huge concern. But other than simply cutting everything to the core, paying off the deficit, and reverting back to the gold standard I'm not sure how it gets fixed.
I would love to see the Federal Government pass a balanced budget amendment, to be exceeded only in the exception of war. As part of that amendment, I'd love to have the US Government get put on a payoff plan for our national debt, say between 30-50 years. If you did that, the Fed's power would decrease dramatically and we would solidify the USD's status as the world's currency because people would know it was a responsible investment. If you want new or increased spending, then request new or increased taxes. Right now, politicians can give, give, give without ever having to deal out any pain. Edit: To be clear, under my idea of a balanced budget amendment, the only amount you'd be able to exceed in a war is the difference between the projected peacetime defense budget and the amount the war costs.
It is sort of funny/sad that the things we debate here tend to be the most trivial of issues (is Obama being mean to Fox News? Did some Norweigans make a mistake when they gave Obama a prize?). As for the balanced budget amendment maxiep proposes, I'd be worried about that exception. Seems like we'd be having a lot more wars (or maybe just one endless war) if that was the only way to open the spending floodgates. [Edit: I see your edit now, and limiting the extra spending to just the war costs removes a good part of my objection.] I'd at least want to exclude wars of choice from the exception. barfo
Why? There would be nothing to be gained, because the only difference in the spending would be to fund the war. There wouldn't be an extra penny to go anywhere.
Ah, my bad. I went back and added to my post when I realized there was a large part I didn't put into my casual proposal. All I want is a government that can pay for itself. The easiest choice is to pay tomorrow for benefits today. That's not the kind of burden I think we should leave the succeeding generations. If we want more benefits, we should pay more TODAY. IMO, that will create a structure where only the most necessary spending passes through.
You are only saying that because you have a kid that looks like Chris Farley. Those of us that are not so blessed do not need to live by these rules Duck and cover, duck and cover.
Some say that belief in global warming (climate change) is delusional. Some say being worried about government wiretapping is paranoia etc. etc. I would argue that what I'm saying is perfectly grounded in a rational understanding of the history of central banking and fractional reserve banking. If Central Banks were run in a similar manner but controlled by the government it might be different, but they are private profit making vehicles that determine the soundness of a nations currency. Read Carrol Quigley's "Tradgedy and Hope: The story of our time" he was considered the greatest history professor on earth (or at a bare minimum in the US) when he wrote that book. He speaks quite clearly about Central Banks and their influence on history. All the information is out there. You can call me paranoid if you wish, but I believe I was the first on this board to say we would soon have a new global currency. Read the headlines especially of European newspapers and you will see I'm correct. Google "The Tower of Basel" it explains what is going on quite succinctly. The solution is to nationalize the FED and default on loans that were secured for the private holders of the FED's stock. If that wipes out BofA so be it. It's a parasite off the back of the american people. Let's control our own currency not sub-contract it out to the least ethical contractors in the history of the world. Also you can look up the Earth + 3% it explains the rise of Central Banking in allegorical form with historical footnotes at the end. English Goldsmiths, the magna carta and all that.
Uh, of course I do. You think i'm outraged at Sean Hannity? LOL. That guy is completely irrelevant. I'm just simply in awe that you seem so oblivious to how messed up their actual "news" broadcasts are (outside of Shep Smith). I guess its just because you agree with it. Comparing the MSNBC and Fox "news" (excluding opinion parts), I think MSNBC is more balanced in their reporting, honestly. You are obviously not going to admit that the channel you are so ideologically close to is not actual news. Again, watch "Outfoxed". I figured it fit perfectly with PapaG talking about CNN being bias to show a clip of a commentator on Fox "News" saying Fox shouldn't be talking about the bias on CNN. I'm sorry that went over your head.
Here Yakbladder. I did the research for you. These put things into fairly concise terms. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13239 For a longer allegory with footnotes to actual historical events: http://www.wepin.com/why/earthp5.html You can also look up Money as Debt on youtube. The point is, regardless of the original intentions things have gone awry. I subscribe to the camp of intent of Central Bankers to gain greater control over physical resources in exchange for worthless paper. It doesn't really matter what their intent was, it's clear that the current intent is, that is they intend to create a one world currency system. By itself it is neither good nor bad. However, the implementation is everything. In all likelihood it will be a VERY undemocratic process. If it is anything like prior Central Banks that masquerade as governmental bodies when they are infact the anti-thesis of a democratic institution then I can only imagine this would be ruinous for the globe. The soverignty implications are also quite clear. Maxiep's idea of a balanced budget amendment will only work when the issuer of currency is the government itself. If the Central Bank disagreed with the government it could easily exacerbate problems e.g. the Great Depression being exacerbated greatly by the then FED govenors as stated by Bernake himself: http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm mind you that is on the FED's own website. Funny that they can't be listed as government in the white pages (look this up you will find them next to Federal Express in the business section not the government) yet they can get a dot.gov website address.
