The Republican Thread

[ChiSox_Sonix]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...earthquake.html

 

 

 

haha

 

 

LOL.

 

Someone must have just watched The Core...

[southsider2k5]

Air America... HE GAWN!!!

 

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...ng-immediately/

 

 

[Balta1701]

Y'all ought to love this one.

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

[EvilMonkey]

Olbermann is like the typical internet bully who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag in person, but give him google and 30 minutes, and he can make up a rant with so many $10 words it would make your head spin.

[southsider2k5]

Because if you do... you get a $45 million buyout...

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shep...icize-colleague

 

NBC Prez on Olbermann-Scarborough Tiff: Don't Publicly Criticize Colleagues

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)

 

 

The president of NBC has officially responded to Joe Scarborough criticizing Keith Olbermann for his attacks on Scott Brown.

 

In a memo obtained by the Huffington Post, Phil Griffin told his on air staff: "We do not publicly criticize our colleagues. This kind of behavior is unprofessional and will not be tolerated."

 

Griffin was addressing comments made by MSNBC's Scarborough about Olbermann. As NewsBusters reported Monday, the "Morning Joe" host first tweeted his disapproval of the "Countdown" host's comments about Brown -- "How reckless and how sad" -- reiterating on his program Tuesday morning, "Sad and pathetic.

 

As a result, Griffin sent out the following memo Friday (h/t TVNewser):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 

From: Griffin, Phil (NBC Universal)

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:02 PM

 

MSNBC is THE place for viewers to get the best political analysis and opinion in today's vast marketplace of ideas. We don't tell our hosts what to say. We don't have talking points. We encourage our talent to voice their opinions strongly and smartly, always rooted in fact. All of this has brought us great success, culminating in last year's victory over CNN.

 

Hosts strongly voicing their OWN opinions can no-doubt lead to spirited, substantive disagreements. This debate is encouraged. What we're doing at MSNBC is something our competition is not. And it is difficult. We have many strong personalities with differing, passionate opinions, but it is important to remember that we are all on the same team. I want to reiterate my long-standing policy: We do not publicly criticize our colleagues. This kind of behavior is unprofessional and will not be tolerated.

 

Let me be clear: I encourage you to keep doing what you do best. Give the viewers your perspective and a vigorous debate on the issues they care about. But do not turn substantive differences into personal ones.

 

Griffin also sent the following to TVNewser:

 

"An important rule was broken. I spoke to Keith and he said in the spirit of teamwork and the free flow of ideas, he didn't think it warranted punishment or suspension. I also talked to Joe and he apologized to me," said the MSNBC president, adding, "That's why I made the decision that this didn't rise to the level of punishment, but I felt it was necessary to reiterate my long-standing policy."

 

For his part, Scarborough tweeted the liberal website Mediaite Saturday, "There is no 'tiff.' I offered a brief commentary as did others."

 

Readers should recall Olbermann dissing Scarborough during a live discussion in the middle of 2008's Democratic National Convention saying, "Jesus, Joe, why don't you get a shovel?"

 

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shep...e#ixzz0dYW9Syun

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure where to put this, so...

 

Chemical Ali, aka the Ace of Spades - He Gone.

 

[southsider2k5]

Nice work...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/25/po...ry6139730.shtml

 

Obama on Magic Johnson...

 

He joked that the Lakers "were feeling cocky" after they won Game 1 in that series. The team would go on to lose the next four games. Later, he hailed Johnson as an "outstanding leader" with an "infections enthusiasm about life."

[NorthSideSox72]

Nice work...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/25/po...ry6139730.shtml

 

Obama on Magic Johnson...

That has to be a typo - who says "infections enthusiasm"? Although even correctly stated, its a pretty bad choice of words.

 

[mr_genius]

Obama calls for spending freeze? FOX news is reporting he is planning to unveil a 3 year budget freeze. I'll believe it when I see it.

Edited January 26, 2010 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

Obama calls for spending freeze? FOX news is reporting he is planning to unveil a 3 year budget freeze. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

 

Since he raised spending by 25% in his first year for most departments, that "spending freeze" is a pimple on an elephant's ass.

[mr_genius]

Since he raised spending by 25% in his first year for most departments, that "spending freeze" is a pimple on an elephant's ass.

 

ah yes. i see what is going on now.

[Rex Kickass]

Since he raised spending by 25% in his first year for most departments, that "spending freeze" is a pimple on an elephant's ass.

 

If by 25% you mean 7%, you'd be right.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26...ns-health-care/

 

Obama's blueprint awards domestic agencies budget increases, on average, of 7 percent in 2010 over 2009 levels. The Pentagon would get a 4 percent boost, to $534 billion next year, but would then get increases of 2 percent or less over the next several years.

[Y2HH]

If by 25% you mean 7%, you'd be right.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26...ns-health-care/

 

Either way, raising the spending, increasing the deficits astronomically, then raising the debt ceiling once temporarily, and a coming second time permanently, and then calling for a "spending freeze" is f***ing stupid, and I don't care if it gets me banned, anyone that buys into this is f***ing stupid, too.

 

Not only would they have to "freeze" everything, but they need to start CUTTING these over funded programs that have the worst job efficiency in existence, and maybe then we'll start getting somewhere.

[Balta1701]

Either way, raising the spending, increasing the deficits astronomically, then raising the debt ceiling once temporarily, and a coming second time permanently, and then calling for a "spending freeze" is f***ing stupid, and I don't care if it gets me banned, anyone that buys into this is f***ing stupid, too.

 

Not only would they have to "freeze" everything, but they need to start CUTTING these over funded programs that have the worst job efficiency in existence, and maybe then we'll start getting somewhere.

It still amazes me that people can on one hand scream about the deficit being awful (it's not, at least not right now) and then on the other hand oppose the strongest deficit reduction program proposed since the Clinton Tax Hike.

[Y2HH]

It still amazes me that people can on one hand scream about the deficit being awful (it's not, at least not right now) and then on the other hand oppose the strongest deficit reduction program proposed since the Clinton Tax Hike.

 

I'm not against it at all -- what I'm against is a bulls*** version of "freeze".

 

You don't raise budgets across the board, then say, oh "now lets freeze them".

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

And wake up...the deficit IS awful. And if it isn't, as you so boldly and blindly claimed, then why would we need to reduce it that strongly? Not that this 17% of the total budget to be frozen is any sort of real reduction anyway, but whatever.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

I'm sick of the entire thing, democrats, republicans, and people who think "that our deficit isn't bad".

 

Even better about this stupid ass proposal from the WSJ:

 

The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal budget, and would likely be overtaken by growth in the untouched areas of discretionary spending. It's designed to save $250 billion over the coming decade, compared with what would have been spent had this area been allowed to rise along with inflation.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

It still amazes me that people can on one hand scream about the deficit being awful (it's not, at least not right now) and then on the other hand oppose the strongest deficit reduction program proposed since the Clinton Tax Hike.

 

So I take it this means you changed your minds on not increasing the deficit meaning the Great Depression?

[Balta1701]

So I take it this means you changed your minds on not increasing the deficit meaning the Great Depression?

Not in the least. The way to deal with the deficit is to; a.) fix the health care system, and b.) get the economy back growing again. Neither of those will be accomplished by any sort of discretionary spending freeze.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not in the least. The way to deal with the deficit is to; a.) fix the health care system, and b.) get the economy back growing again. Neither of those will be accomplished by any sort of discretionary spending freeze.

it also won't be accomplished with temporary road construction jobs.

 

[Balta1701]

it also won't be accomplished with temporary road construction jobs.

Not entirely, but that could have been a reasonable part if the program to do it had been 5x larger.

[Balta1701]

It's also quite remarkable that defense spending...still doesn't count as actual spending.

[Cknolls]

What would have been courageous is a CUT in spending of 20%. Freezing does nothing. But then that would mean gov't would have to shrink, and we cannot have that, can we?

[NorthSideSox72]

What would have been courageous is a CUT in spending of 20%. Freezing does nothing. But then that would mean gov't would have to shrink, and we cannot have that, can we?

Courageous but dumb, if you just make blanket cuts like that. As I've said before, cuts need to be smart - you cut inefficiencies, not just cut EVERYTHING by some amount. That would be business-stupid.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Courageous but dumb, if you just make blanket cuts like that. As I've said before, cuts need to be smart - you cut inefficiencies, not just cut EVERYTHING by some amount. That would be business-stupid.

And every department head knows where those inefficiencies are, they just wont tell you. And you tell them they need to cut, they cry abut how the only area thay can cut is Y and that would just devestate their depsrtment, but they will cut that, if YOU want to, knowing full well that they can just about all cut 15% or more and not even feel it where it matters. Just like when the state tells you it needs more money, people say no, you need to cut spending, first place they always go is either police/fire protection or schools, when you KNOW there are hundreds of other places to go first.

[Balta1701]

It's really remarkable how many people get elected saying they're going to cut waste/inefficiency and then when they actually get into office, they find that the estimates of waste that they came up with before they got elected were always an order of magnitude too large, yet people continue to run with them.